Re: Minimum Python for swig-py bindings
Eric Gillespie wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>> Author: glasser
>> Date: Mon Oct 8 14:24:21 2007
>> New Revision: 27029
>> For SWIG-Python tests, use unique names for temp repositories, so that
>> multiple executions of the test suite don't stomp on each other (or on
>> future executions: client.py doesn't really clean up after itself).
>> (tempfile.mkdtemp would be better than tempfile.mktemp, but
>> subversion/bindings/swig/INSTALL claims we need to support way back to
>> Python 2.0.)
> mkstemp is new in 2.3, which is over four years old. How many
> people are upgrading to svn 1.5 while keeping a four-year-old
> Python? Not that many. If we could at least move up to 2.2,
> then we could use new-style classes for classes like
> svn.delta.Editor and svn.ra.Callbacks .
> I see dlr talking in another thread about bumping the
> requirements for the Java binding.
> I see no reason for the Python binding to be stuck in 2000.
I think we should *definitely* move up to Python 2.2 at least, and would
be totally ok with us moving up to Python 2.3.
Received on Fri Oct 12 01:12:08 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev