[IronPython] pywin32 on Iron Python?
dinov at microsoft.com
Tue Apr 28 08:53:34 PDT 2009
The primary difference between IP and IR is just that IP is in the
lucky spot of getting to push things one step further. This just
reflects the reality that other teams within MS have taken a
dependency on IronPython (e.g. Robotics, Intellipad, and most recently
Navision - who knows what's next!). Therefore we get to fight the
next battle of not only taking back contributions but also then
redistributing those contributions as part of another MS product. So
it's no longer about just us or our peers working on the DLR :(
It sucks that we can't take your work back - I had many moments yesterday
where I was wondering if you had implemented something already.
I'll get started on a future releases plan page. Just as a teaser beta 1
is about a month away. We are a little bit shy about announcing
a particular date - if we said 9/29/2009 or something and got it wrong
we'd feel a little bit silly. But we can at least give a better idea
of the road map (e.g. 2 betas, RC, then release sort of thing which is
the plan) rather than saying an indeterminate amount of releases and
we'll ship like we have in the past :)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: users-bounces at lists.ironpython.com [mailto:users-
> bounces at lists.ironpython.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Hardy
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:49 PM
> To: Discussion of IronPython
> Subject: Re: [IronPython] pywin32 on Iron Python?
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Dino Viehland <dinov at microsoft.com>
> > Sorry Jeff, you're right. I had started this a long time ago just as
> a fun thing
> > to hack on every now and then and it's recently gotten good enough
> that it seems
> > like it can make it into 2.6. So it's a bit of an oddball - even if
> we had a
> > place for me to claim that I was working on it it's doubtful that I
> would have
> > actually claimed it until about a week or two ago...
> That's about how I started, too (that, and I wanted to get the csvn
> bindings working), and about the same time I felt comfortable making
> it public.
> The problem as I see it is that you can't take any of the work I've
> done (on the off chance that my version has something novel ;)), and
> even once it's in the trunk, the only thing I can do to improve it is
> file bug reports. I know you have to go through the lawyers - and I
> can only imagine how much fun that must be - but I do wonder what the
> difference is between IR (which accepts library contributions) and IP
> (which doesn't).
> Is the plan to wait until the DLR is out of the IronPython tree, to
> avoid any IP issues with it? Or is it, like most things, simply too
> many things to do and not enough bodies?
> > The good news is there's no other surprises like this lurking - we've
> > been focused on 2.6, bugs, and startup perf - but ctypes is the #1
> > request so it seemed worthy of working on it.
> > Maybe we should add a 2.6 Plan page to the CodePlex site? I'm sure
> there's more
> > information than just what new features we expect to be included that
> > go there.
> I think a listing of what's planned to 2.6 would be great - especially
> the parts that aren't in 2.0 already. I assume all of the CPython 2.6
> features will be in there, but what are the holes in IPy 2.0 that 2.6
> is going to fill? Also, at least an estimated timeline - I've heard
> 'fall' as an estimate, but something a little more concrete would be
> nice :).
> - Jeff
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.ironpython.com
More information about the Users