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

[<fwi...@gm...>]

I am in agreement with Stefan as well. I think making 2.7.x
exceptional in that the numbering could convey the version of CPython
since so much extra work went into CPython 2.7.x. I'd be against doing
that for 3.x.x. Though we'd want to be honest and if the reality is
that it is based on (say) 2.7.6 at time of release, that should be the
number until we actually do get up to 2.7.12 (or later).

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Jeff Allen <ja...@fa...> wrote:
> 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...> 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...> 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:
>>>
>>> Release Jython 2.7.1
>>> Modernize the codebase. I think it's important for the project to feel
>>> modern for us to attract new contributors.
>>>
>>> Java8 as the minimum (may be too much for Jython2).
>>> Github/core-workflow
>>> (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).
>>> Gradle, directory structure.
>>>
>>> Develop Jython3 primarily. Only bugfixes for 2.7 series.
>>>
>>> Target 3.6 (really like the typing improvements).
>>> Merge JyNI if possible.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Darjus
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 11:45 PM Jeff Allen <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...>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Jython-dev mailing list
> Jyt...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev
>