increasing the python requirement

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Tue Jan 4 22:00:35 UTC 2011


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 1/4/2011 12:33 PM, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at vernstok.nl> writes:
> 
>     > If bzr 2.4 introduced any format changes then not supporting Python 2.4
>     > would be a much bigger deal IMO, because users would have to upgrade to
>     > 2.4 to interact with repositories in the newer format. 
> 
> Not anymore since you mentioned it :)
> 
> Iff we introduced a new format, we'll also have to support it for
> python-2.4 [1]
> 
> We have plenty of time to discuss with the users involved. This includes
> mentioning that interoperability inside a project is based on the format
> used[2]. Add a smooth upgrade operation (still need work) and people have
> plenty of time to migrate.
> 
> Even if we have to do such focused backports, I think the corresponding
> effort is still worth the benefits of having to support only 2 different
> versions of python instead of 4.
> 
> By reducing to 2.6/2.7 we also narrow the gap with python-3.x which
> should make the transition easier.
> 
>      Vincent

- From what I've seen if you restrict it to 2.6/2.7 then it is *possible*
to support 3.x in the same code base (without running 2to3). I think it
used one of the compat libs that let you from "compat" import to_bytes,
and then you wrap all your constants in to_bytes('foo'). Then again,
with extensions and everything else, I would be pretty surprised if we
ever got that to work. And it would potentially make for pretty ugly code.

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0jmIMACgkQJdeBCYSNAANK2QCguIK0Z9iLd1xpLWfl9lFp48OE
18YAnA2WSGcNJfeQSQsV/VZdoNqU6dp2
=6lJ9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the bazaar mailing list