Supported python versions, pre-commit tests, sphinx

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 07:57:05PM -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> >> Currently we support python2.4 and up, and build optional docs via
> >> sphinx. sphinx seems to be nicer than what we were using before, and
> >> Ian wants to delete the old cruft:)
> >>
> >> However our pre-commit testing environment currently runs 'hardy', and
> >> that does not have python-sphinx available.
> >>
> >> We have a few of [easyish] options.
> >>  - don't make this change
> >>  - stop testing that the docs build
> >>  - backport sphinx to hardy
> >>  - change the test environment to run 'lucid'
> > 
> > Of these, “backport sphinx to hardy” seems best to me.  The drawbacks of
> > the other options are too great.
> > 
> > -Andrew.
> 
> Well, drop official python2.4 support is potentially on the table. I
> think it is reasonable to look at who needs new releases of bzr on
> python2.4 and make sure it is worth the overhead to support it.
> 
> I'm intentionally CCing Martin <gz> because I believe he uses py2.4 on
> Windows.
> 
> I personally don't see a big problem with bzr 2.2+ becoming python2.5+,
> but I want to make sure to get feedback from our community about it first.
> 
RHEL-5.5 (and it's derivatives like centos5) is the distribution I care
about that ships python-2.4.  RHEL5 will EOL in 2014[1]_.  RHEL-6 is in beta
now and with python-2.6.  I don't know when it will actually release.

.. _[1]: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/

There's also a python2.6 backport in the EPEL-5 repository for RHEL-5.
However, unlike Debian supports alternate python interpreters, we don't
build our python modules for multiple python interpreters.  That means we
don't have a full stack of python modules for python2.6 on RHEL5 at the
moment (and consequently, we couldn't run newer bzr's there without getting
the stack built).

I've recently upgraded the bzr in EPEL to 2.1.  If bzr-2.1/2.2 were supported
for 4 more years, I'd be more than happy for bzr-2.3+ to leave behind
python-2.4 :-)  [Not sure which is the more outrageous suggestion :-)]

Note that the biggest issue that requires updating bzr is changes to the
repository format.  If necessary, I can either produce local patches for
bugs or tell people that they have to work around them.  New branch formats,
though, mean that people are no longer able to interoperate between
launchpad or new bzr servers hosted elsewhere and old clients running on
their machines.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20100601/be2805f7/attachment-0001.pgp