Re: [Jython-dev] Unicode user and file names (and v2.7.1)

[Jeff A. <ja...@fa...>]

The numbering scheme for Python versions is quite well known.

https://docs.python.org/3/faq/general.html#how-does-the-python-version-numbering-scheme-work

One ought not to interpret the micro-version as more than bug-fix 
numbering. While I don't see a prohibition against skipping micro 
numbers I think it never seemed sensible to CPython when fear of double 
digits was an issue. So I start out opposed to the idea.

However, I recognise that 2.7, because there will never be a 2.8, has 
become a bit of a special case, and the micro-version might be read as a 
maturity claim. I like the logic of using the provenance of  
~/lib-python/2.7/test. So for "clarity in marketing" I'm not against a 
modest vorsprung.

I don't think Jython 2.7.1 is our last release in that version of the 
language. I'm sure we'll do more bug-fixes, and some back-ports from 3. 
(Like others, I've told myself that after this release, I'll give some 
time to 3.)

... so now, I find I've agreed with everything Stefan said!

To answer Stefan's question, the last mass update of lib-python was 
2013/03/09 (https://hg.python.org/jython/rev/f763cd15ee2b). I don't 
believe the CPython change set it cites (README says its a v3.4), while 
CPython 2.7.4 was in beta at that date. We've pulled in specific parts 
of the CPython library since then to meet specific needs, but made no 
mass update. This alone seems a good reason for a further release.

Jeff Allen

On 22/05/2017 19:03, Stefan Richthofer wrote:
> If we move away from 2.7.1 at all, the micro version should match the 
> point where we updated python-lib last time IMO. I doubt it is 2.7.12. 
> Maybe it's 2.7.6 or so I suspect (sorry if I should be wrong). Does 
> someone now an efficient way to look it up?
> A different numbering scheme for marketing purposes would be 
> misleading and might disappoint users even more.
> Also. I don't find Jython 2.7.1 should be the last Jython 2.7 or 
> likewise. There will continue to be (maybe minor) progress and we 
> should release this based on time intervals (6months was the plan, 
> wasn't it?). IMO it's not so important that huge progress happens from 
> version to version. Progress from 2.7.0 to 2.7.1 is actually far too 
> large. Much more important is that there is progress at all and that 
> it's displayed to the community by frequent releases.
> -Stefan
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 22. Mai 2017 um 19:50 Uhr
> *Von:* "Jim Baker" <jim...@py...>
> *An:* "Alan Kennedy" <jyt...@xh...>
> *Cc:* "Darjus Loktevic" <da...@gm...>, "Jeff Allen" 
> <ja...@fa...>, "Stefan Richthofer" <Ste...@gm...>, 
> "Jython Developers" <jyt...@li...>
> *Betreff:* Re: [Jython-dev] Unicode user and file names (and v2.7.1)
> Alan,
> That's a great suggestion. 2.7 was specifically chosen to show this 
> correspondence. In the past, we were not so as focused on 
> compatibility, but most of the changes — and corresponding delays — in 
> what we have been planning to call 2.7.1 are because of the continued 
> development on CPython 2.7, by backporting fixes from successive 
> versions of CPython 3.
> So calling it 2.7.12 helps illustrate this. Any other thoughts on 
> Alan's proposal?
> - Jim
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Alan Kennedy <jyt...@xh... 
> <mailto:jyt...@xh...>> wrote:
>
>     Hi folks,
>     Great to see a solid 2.7.1 jython, and work begin in earnest on
>     jython 3.
>     I have only one small suggestion to make: if jython 2.7.1 is going
>     to be one of the last 2.7 releases, maybe consider numbering it in
>     a way that indicates it is derived from the latest version of
>     cpython 2.7.12. This could indicate that it is as up-to-date as it
>     can be, i.e. not derived from cpython 2.7.1 and then abandoned.
>     Perception of abandonment is often a problem for jython: I think
>     it's worth an effort to counter this mis-perception.
>     Regards,
>     Alan.
>     On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Darjus Loktevic <da...@gm...
>     <mailto:da...@gm...>> wrote:
>
>         Hey Guys,
>         Regarding Jython3, looks like Isaiah has done a ton of work in
>         2016 (CCd). Not sure how far he progressed, but indeed merging
>         will be hard and therefore I'd say we should not diverge
>         further while developing on both branches, but instead try to
>         finalize 2.7 and switch to Jython3 full-time.
>         Feel free to disagree, but here's my thinking on it:
>
>          1. Release Jython 2.7.1
>          2. Modernize the codebase. I think it's important for the
>             project to feel modern for us to attract new contributors.
>              1. Java8 as the minimum (may be too much for Jython2).
>              2. Github/core-workflow
>              3. (Ideally) ANTLR4 for both branches, but worst case,
>                 Jython3 only. ANTLR3 is not getting much love and
>                 ANTLR4 is quite different (does not generate AST).
>              4. Gradle, directory structure.
>          3. Develop Jython3 primarily. Only bugfixes for 2.7 series.
>              1. Target 3.6 (really like the typing improvements).
>              2. Merge JyNI if possible.
>
>         Cheers,
>         Darjus
>         On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:45 PM Jeff Allen
>         <ja...@fa... <mailto:ja...@fa...>> wrote:
>
>             Thanks all. +1 on the RC. Nearly there with my bit.
>
>             I have fixed the test_runpy failure James reported. It's
>             not Linux-specific, just I had to quieten the unlink()
>             error to see it on Windows. Bonus: we now pass the
>             standard CPython test_runpy. The regrtest has been running
>             one last time as I typed. I've pushed to
>             https://bitbucket.org/tournesol/jython-utf8 just now.
>
>             I will next merge into the Jython trunk. That may not be
>             totally smooth because of the pervasive change. And now I
>             think about it, it's worth a note in NEWS. My time is a
>             little limited today, so it could be much later today or
>             tomorrow evening.
>
>             Jeff
>
>             Jeff Allen
>
>             On 20/05/2017 19:48, Jim Baker wrote:
>
>                 +100
>                 On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Darjus Loktevic
>                 <da...@gm... <mailto:da...@gm...>> wrote:
>
>                     Agreed regarding not blocking on 2487. That whole
>                     area needs a rewrite and we could potentially
>                     utilize libraries available for Java 8.
>                     Let's get Jeff's work in and do an RC?
>                     Darjus
>