Just out of curiosity, will this be confined to python 2.x still? We
use 3.1, so whenever we have to take a new protobuf release it's
always kind of a process porting it to 3.1.
We can do it again of course, just wondering if 3.x support will be
out of the box.
On Sep 14, 11:28 am, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
> Petar mostly finished this work, but then left the company. We're trying to
> tie up the loose ends so that we can get it out, but everyone is pretty
> busy. We'll probably do 2.4.0 within a month or two as we have a new team
> member who needs to learn the release process, and it should at least
> include a beta of this work.
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Zachary Turner <divisorthe...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Reading through old threads, I found one that said that the next
> > release would probably include Petar's python wrapper for native C++
> > protobufs, greatly increasing speed of protubufs when calling from
> > Python.
> > Another post mentioned that this was expected to be done sometime this
> > summer.
> > Now that summer has come and gone, does anyone have an update about
> > when this release might be ready? We're considering re-inventing a
> > python / C++ wrapper just because the performance is such a blocker on
> > what we're working on at the moment, but given how long it's been in
> > the works, it seems like it's such a black hole of work that we're
> > going to embark on, whereas the magic hammer solution might only just
> > around the corner.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Protocol Buffers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to prot...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > protobuf+u...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at