Rationale behind the JSON -> CJSON switch in Sugar codebase?
tomeu at sugarlabs.org
Fri Nov 13 05:50:43 EST 2009
2009/11/13 Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:
>> Right now just using the json module in python 2.6 may be best as the
>> parser is a C module (AFAIR).
>> Is because of a bug in cjson why those files aren't being parsed?
> Re-reading this -- and given that yes, it's a bug in the cjson parser
> -- probably a revert is the sanest thing to do.
> Do you agree?
For past stable releases, deployers are the ones who should know best.
If you are talking about 0.82, then we should go back to use
simplejson. If this is 0.84 on F11, then we can use what python 2.6
Daniel has taken over maintenance of 0.84 so it's him to decide. And
if someone would like to take maintenance of the 0.82 branch (someone
from a deployment?), then the better.
«Sugar Labs is anyone who participates in improving and using Sugar.
What Sugar Labs does is determined by the participants.» - David
More information about the Devel