[Biopython-dev] Updating Biopython requirements wording to recommend Python 3

[Tiago Antao]

Hi Eric,

I think this is a great way of phrasing things. Your wording seems to strike a very good compromise between the past and the future. Personally I would prefer a more forward-looking   wording. But it strikes me as a perfect Middle ground.

On October 1, 2015 12:18:16 PM MDT, Eric Talevich <eric.talevich at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Would anyone object to a more forward looking phrasing, e.g.
>>
>> We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from http://www.python.org
>and
>> avoiding
>> legacy Python 2.6 or 2.7 unless your choice is restricted due to
>having to
>> work
>> with old code.
>>
>
>The word "avoiding" might cause some scientists to panic because it
>implies
>something might be wrong with the earlier versions. How about:
>
>We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from http://www.python.org.
>Biopython will also work with earlier Python versions 3.4, 3.3, and the
>legacy Python versions 2.7 and 2.6.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Biopython-dev mailing list
>Biopython-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython-dev

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20151001/7e5dd04c/attachment-0001.html>