Paul Burba wrote:
> 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.
> Hi Blair,
> 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).
I updated to r35212 and setting PATH=/usr/bin:/bin and PYTHON=/usr/bin/python on
our Centos 4 box everything worked fine.
> 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...
I think we need to maintain compatibility with tools that build Subversion on
recent OSes. The fix in r35193, if not applied, would require the Subversion
packager to build Python and then Subversion. I think overall it's probably
less effort for us to do this work in one place then require anyone on an older
OS to build Python.
Received on 2009-01-13 21:57:08 CET