GeezerVison

>>> I would like to renew the discussion now that "there is a PEP" to see
>>> if there are any outstanding things people would like to get resolved.
>>> I chose to continue to push it for 2.6 / 3.0 inclusion due to feedback
>>> both here and elsewhere that people would rather see this in sooner in
>>> some form, rather than later (i.e.: 2.7/3.1).
>>
>> +1 from me (under the 'multiprocessing' name, with the understanding that
>> some code duplication with other parts of the standard library may still
>> remain in 2.6/3.0).
> 
> +1 from me as well, and I support the rename to multiprocessing
> ("processing" is just too much of a common word).
> 
> This will provide a good short-term answer to those who still clamor
> for dropping the GIL.

I'm very happy this is going forward.  It's a big win.


Raymond