Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment: > >> The arguments given in that thread sound a bit strange to me: >> just because there were no changes to a few files, doesn't really >> say anything about whether they contain working code or not. > > That was a heuristic. Files which do not get any maintenance for years > while other similar files do are quite suspicious. > Given that nobody stepped up to contradict this hypothesis of mine, I > assume it was right after all ;) We'll only be able to tell for sure when it's too late: at release time. We simply don't have any active developers working on more exotic platforms, but that doesn't mean that Python isn't used on those platforms. > More seriously, all the APIs in question (and most of their supporting > systems: IRIX etc.) seem practically dead. I don't want to rehash that > discussion here, but you can post on python-dev if you want. No need... I'm tired of trying to get Python devs on track with respect to the PEP 11 process, deprecations, etc. >> You could just as well remove them right now: if the GIL doesn't >> work on OS/2, then having support for it in the _thread module >> isn't really worth much, is it ? > > Andrew told me he believed it possible to port the new GIL to OS/2. So > perhaps he'll do that before 3.2 is out. > >> With just NT and POSIX thread support, I think backporting the >> new GIL implementation to 2.7 is not possible - we'd have to go >> through a standard PEP 11 deprecation process and there are not >> enough 2.x releases left for that. It could only be backported >> as optional feature, to be enabled by a configure option. > > Right. That's what I think too. I'll close the issue then.