3 ms·
> but we have to at least acknowledge CPython's stated position. We know the council and cpython stated position. None of the arguments in [1],[2] or [3] are
by soulbadguy 3y ago
> but we have to at least acknowledge CPython's stated position.
We know the council and cpython stated position. None of the arguments in [1],[2] or [3] are new...
The point is we disagree with it...
You seem to imply that because GVR and/or the council call it a fork, then it is a fork... Again, we understand the position, we just think is not a valid point...
> We can debate whatever you want
You haven't debated anything yet... you just repeat/link what member of the council says and somehow call that an argument... This is very confusing
- nunuvit 3y agoThe usual way to dispute a decision is to start by refuting the justification. I think that's a reasonable ask.
- soulbadguy 3y agoIt was never my intention to dispute the council decision (choice really). One can disagree with a decision without needing to dispute it. Concerning the justifications, here again i am a bit confused, because all references you are giving, point to the amount of effort as being one (if not the biggest) concerns... which the what i am saying. But to take a step back, my main point was about the OP who described the situation as some cancer-cure level of complexity, comparing it to moving 300 million people from the imperial system to the metric system... : And i am saying that the situation here is not that complicated all the technical problem s can be address "at the same time" , but at the price a very large dev. effort and increase in complexity of the code base. The council doesn't think that gil-less is worth that amount of trouble.
- nunuvit 3y agoCompletely agree with you about it not being technically complex. I responded to your other comment, so let's move it over there.