On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM, David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
>>> I'm pretty sure we decided to do this several times already. Search for
>>> from me about it...
>> Dave found this other thread he mentioned above:
>> Blair, in that thread you objected to 2.4 at the time because:
>>> I suggest bumping to 2.2 since RHEL 4, which is still in a lot
>>> of places, is on 2.3. To have to build Python 2.4 or greater
>>> just to test svn on RHEL 4 would be a pain.
>>> So bump to Python 2.2 but include subprocess.py with the svn test suite.
>> Blair, does your previous objection still hold today?
> How much work is it to support 2.3 in the current code? I just saw one
> commit you had r35193.
Probably not that much, after r35193 I can successfully run the tests
with 2.3.5, though I still can't do a fresh rebuild of Subversion with
2.3.5 (I still think that is probably a minor problem, though I
haven't tried to fix that since I have only been interested thus far
in getting the buildbots working and supporting running the tests in
parallel on my own Windows box).
So it mostly comes down to the fact that we are trying to maintain the
two different code paths for 2.4+ and < 2.4 and does the effort of
doing so justify the benefit of supporting < 2.4...
> Personally, we're still running on RHEL4, but since RHEL5 is out with Python
> 2.4, I could be convinced to move to Python 2.4. But we shouldn't move any
> later than that.
...for me it doesn't, but on Windows obtaining and installing the
latest versions of Python is trivial. But if folks like you are
suddenly stuck having to build Python yourself, and that process is
too cumbersome, then perhaps we should wait. The problem is, I have
no idea how difficult building Pyton on Linux is, nor how many of our
developers would be affected. So, do any other Linux developers have
a strong opinion on this?
Received on 2009-01-12 23:16:06 CET