Hi, Sorry for the delay as well. On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:22:44PM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Yes - at least if we don't expect many people to have locally > installed software depending on python-simpy. This is a good point. Anyone that is using the current python-simpy for local work or for any other software would have a completely broken software after upgrade. I was assuming people would have to migrate eventually anyway. But as it was pointed out before, since the python module was renamed to lowercase, we could just let the two packages coexist, so as to not blindside the user. On the other hand, simpy 2 is dead and completely unmaintained. But there is also the issue of mgltools, which is non-free and officially uses simpy 1.8, so I think we have our hands tied here. At this point, making the two packages co-installable seems to me like the better approach. On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:33:18PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I think we should be cautious about converting individual packages. > If there's a good reason to convert yours now (or if you're > experimenting with the conversions and don't want to lose your work), > okay, but otherwise let's wait until flag day, which hopefully will > not be very far off. I was going to put it on svn, even if only to make review easier, but I got busy and I haven't used svn in many years since I started using git. So to me it would be a lot better to just put it straight to git. I doubt this qualifies as a good enough reason, so I'll just put it on svn as soon as I get a little free time. Unless we decide to make simpy 3 a new package, in this case I believe I could put it on git already, correct? Or should this renamed package preserve history of the previous simpy package? -- Larissa Reis Colivre - Cooperativa de Tecnologias Livres www.colivre.coop.br
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature