Re: [Automake-NG] Automake vs. Automake-NG

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 08/21/2012 07:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>> Maybe we just need good PR and "advertisment" in this.  The python
>> developers has managed to make a 3.0 release incompatible with the 2.x
>> series, because they've been very clear and vocal about the breakage,
>> and have been for a long time.  We might need to learn from them here,
>> and maybe we'll succeed.  Any suggestion?
> 
> It is not clear that there is any significant use of Python 3 at all.
>
Almost all major third-party python libraries have either been made
compatible with Python 3, or are in the process of being made so.

Once that is completed, a new program or library that wants to target
only python 3 will be able to do so while still being able to use all
the important libraries that have made the fortune of python.

That sounds like a success to me.  But that is more an impression
rather than a reasoned conclusion coming from hard data.  Do you
maybe have data or references that shows my impression is wrong?

> It is easier to create an subtly incompatible version with more
> features but difficult to get users to transition to it when older
> versions are working "fine" and are still supported.
> 
> This discussion thread has really gotten out of hand.  Why has
> it spilled onto two more discussion lists (automake and help-smalltalk)?
>
Because all of us have forgotten to drop the 'CC:' to that list (where
the discussion originated from) at a proper time :-(

> If it had been held only on the automake list then there would be less
> harm to the free software world
>
Which harm are you referring to?  Honest question.  The fact that me
and Paolo disagree (politely!) on some issues should not be taken as
some sort of sign that the community is "split" or "quarrelsome".  In
fact, I highly value his input, and his opinion as well (even where
it differs from mine).

> since everyone on the automake-ng list is surely already on the
> automake list.
>
That is true; but since the discussion pertains to Automake-NG
as well, it seemed a good idea to me to have it registered in
the Automake-NG archives too.

Regards,
  Stefano