"Patrick K. O'Brien" <pobrien@orbtech.com> writes:
Personally, I would be happy with 2.1 and 2.2. But I recognize that
some people may still be stuck on 1.5, for whatever reason. So
perhaps the 2.3.2 release would be the time to say "this is the last
release for anything less that Python 2.1!" One reason to do so is
that 2.3.2 is so much better than 2.3.1. So even if someone were
stuck with Python 1.5 and wxPython 2.3.2, that wouldn't be too
bad. I'm not sure the same could be said about Python 1.5 and
wxPython 2.3.1. That's my 2 cents worth.
At least until next year sometime, my installed base (large and
distributed) is all at Python 1.5.2, so at least for me I'd vote for
having a 1.5.2 compatible build, although I realize I'm probably a
member of a continually shrinking minority 
The point about the 2.3.x series is a good one however, since those of
us still using 1.5.2 tend (I believe) to be those with deployed
systems where change needs to be taken more gradually, and thus we're
less likely to immediately upgrade to new wxPython releases as well,
which might be skewing the download stats. I know that I'm still
using the 2.2.x series because of the occasional things I see about 2.3.x
on this list (plus the lack of an urgent need to change) but I've been
awaiting 2.3.2 as the next possible version to move to.
If having a build for 1.5.2 does become too problematic, I would still
push for at least ensuring that the source can build and operate under
1.5.2. I could handle having to build the binaries myself from
source, but would be more concerned if source compatibility was being
dropped entirely. Something like that I do think could use a release
or so of notice - such as suggested above.
-- David
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
\ David Bolen \ E-mail: db3l@fitlinxx.com /
> FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 |
/ 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------/