[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)

Jesse Noller jnoller at gmail.com
Thu May 27 02:05:28 CEST 2010

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On 27/05/10 02:27, Terry Reedy wrote:

I am suggesting that if we add a package, we do it right, from the beginning. This is a reasonable point of view, but I wouldn't want to hold up PEP 3148 over it (call it a +0 for the idea in general, but a -1 for linking it to the acceptance of PEP 3148). A separate short PEP proposing a migration plan that could be accepted or rejected independently of PEP 3148 would likely be valuable. E.g.  - no change in 2.x (obviously)  - add concurrent.* alternate names in 3.x  - rearrange documentation in 3.x, with pointers from old names to new names  - put a PendingDeprecationWarning on the old names, but otherwise leave them alone indefinitely  - add 2to3 fixers to translate from the old names to the new names in import statements Cheers, Nick.

Agreed; and intended as a different PEP.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list