>3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the
>new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems
>with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the
>latest and greatest Python version.
>The message is clear, but some people just don't like the current
>message: Python 2 is still the recommended default version for
>production systems and applications.
I would hedge that and say that for new work where you have your Python 3
dependencies available, Python 3 should be the recommended default. In
Ubuntu, we are actively porting our core system utilities to Python 3, but
some dependencies stop us for getting all the way there. Xapian and Twisted
come to mind, but the Twisted folks are making great progress, so I expect
that for our Twisted apps at least, that story will be better soon.
Python 3.3 has some very clear advantages, so we are pushing to make that the
default leading up to Ubuntu 14.04 LTS.
>- Fedora, RHEL and derivatives still require Python 2 for all their
>system utilities (Ubuntu at least has migrated their core system
>tools, but I don't know about Debian upstream)
Debian Wheezy is in freeze so I wouldn't expect a lot of adoption there until
after that's released. Then I hope that we'll be able to push those things
>I don't think the ecosystem is to the point where it makes sense to
>flip the switch just yet, but I do think it would be reasonable to
>define the ecosystem state where we *will* flip the switch. The two
>key missing pieces for me are:
>- a Django release with non-experimental Python 3 support (i.e. likely
>to happen with Django 1.6)
>- an official release of PIL (or Pillow) that supports Python 3
One way to look at it is that there doesn't necessary have to be just one big
switch. There's a big bank of switches, many of which can be flipped now.
Yes, I'd love for the whole line of 'em to be Python 3 green, and eventually
they will be, but if you don't need Django or PIL (or whatever still isn't
ported yet), don't wait, port!
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 27.10.2012 16:40, schrieb Nick Coghlan:
>>>> 4. We add a notice like the one above to the home page of the 2.7
>>>> docs, announce it on the PSF blog, announce it far and wide
>>> We also need a solution for URLs that exist for Python 2, but
>>> not for Python 3. Those should be redirected to the Python 2
>>> resource automatically, e.g. URLs pointing to the Python 2 modules
>>> that were renamed in Python 3.
> The thing about 'doc2' & 'doc3' urls I don't like is that sooner or later
> users will use python 3. There is no future for python 2.
That's true for each user (assuming they don't die before switching).
It's not true for all applications, though. There will undoubtedly be
systems based on Python 2 still in active, profitable use 10 years
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 10:55 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > >3.3 is now out 29 months after 2.7, library support is much improved, and the
> >new unicode implementation fixes most to almost all the remaining problems
> >with unicode. It is a release we can be proud of and should promote as the
> >latest and greatest Python version.
> > Very definitely +1
As stated, yes, very much so.
I think it's unfortunate that some of this discussion has generated
more heat than light because there are three different goals here all
stemming from "promoting Python 3": (1) "... as a great language", (2)
"... as a great production-ready development environment" (for *some*
applications), and (3) "... as a great production-ready development
environment" (period, or to take a page from Linus's book, "World
The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/,
which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the
corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph
should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page?
(Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version
switcher a reality)
Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote:
> > As for promotion, I just noticed that searching for "Python 3" gives this
> > as the first result:
> The second result is the current docs at http://docs.python.org/3.3/,
> which is pretty useful, *except* that the docs have no pointer to the
> corresponding release page. Perhaps the existing "Welcome" paragraph
> should be extended with a reference to the appropriate release page?
I think that's probably not necessary. Someone who is really searching
for the newest version will of course find it.
Getting rid of 3.0 in the top search results is more of an image thing.
3.0 is associated with "this new experimental version with virtually
no packages that support it".
For the casual searcher who might be trying to decide between Python and
other languages it would be nice to have more 3.3 links, hopefully sending
the message "a better Python with many more features and Django/Twisted
support just around the corner".
> (Also: very nice work to everyone that helped make the version
> switcher a reality)
I agree, the docs.python.org changes are a great improvement. Thanks everyone.
> On 27 October 2012 12:43, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:06:41 +0100
>> Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Another idea is similar, but instead of doing /2.x/ always redirect the
>>>> the root of docs.python.org to the latest production release, so
>>>> right now /foo would redirect to /2.7/foo. This is even better for
>>>> maintaining links to the actual resource people meant to link
>>>> to. Could even include a header at the top of old versions saying that
>>>> "You are currently viewing the docs for 2.5. Click here to view the
>>>> docs for 2.7".
>>> -1. Certainly what I (and I suspect many others) usually care about is
>>> getting at the "Python 2" or "Python 3" documentation, not a specific
>>> version. Having the 2.7, 2.6 links is fine, but I don't *think* of
>>> myself as going to the 2.7 docs, but rather to the 2.x docs (as
>>> opposed to 3.x). The "New in x.y" annotations give me the history I
>>> need. And I think that's true of links as well - they would be to
>>> "python 2" or "python 3", not (normally) to a specific minor version.
>> I'm not sure why you're -1 about something which wouldn't affect you
>> negatively. As you say yourself, the 2.7 docs have all the information
>> you need about previous releases as well (because of the versionadded
>> and versionchanged markers). *However*, the 2.6 and previous docs don't
>> have information about useful stuff added in 2.7.
> Maybe I misunderstood. I was assuming that there would be no "2.x"
> link, only "2.7". That's what I'm against - I would prefer to use a
> generic 2.x link to get to the Python 2 docs if I needed them (just as
> I use docs.python.org at the moment).
> My -1 was too strong though, make that a -0 (and a "don't care" if
> there will be a 2.x link as well as the explicit ones).
>> And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to
>> reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
> I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we?
Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/ if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked.
Python-ideas mailing list
>>> And since 2.7 is the last in the 2.x line, I think it makes sense to >>> reflect that explicitly in the redirections.
>> I'm not against an explicit 2.7 link - we have that already, don't we?
> Did this change recently? I just noticed that from http://www.python.org/doc/ > if I click "Browse Current Documentation" under then Python 2.x section, it
> links to docs.python.org which then redirects to docs.python.org/3/ which is
> NOT the 2.x current documentation for which I clicked. -- Jay