[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [discuss] Required Python Versions

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 19:14:57 +0200

Everybody:

The current trend of this thread is to follow the plan below. Please
speak up on your thoughts.

I plan to take action to further this plan, beginning Thursday (that
provides 72 hours for people to see this thread and provide their
input).

We are seeing some further failures in the test suite caused by the
recent unicode changes. I want to give ample time for discussion, but
also want to get moving on this to avoid problems like we're seeing in
the tests.

Cheers,
-g

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 17:00, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this is an issue that the svn devs need to discuss: what
> Python versions are required, expected, and supported.
>
> I'm going to throw out a strawman here for discussion.
>
>
> End-users
> - Python is not required to use "core" svn
> - Python scripts that are part of our distribution bundle
>  - Minimum: 2.4
>  - Supported: 2.x
>  - Possible for some scripts: 3.0
>
> Packagers
> - Python is not required
>
> Developers
> - Python is required: gen-make, test suite, dist packaging, etc
> - Minimum: 2.4
> - Supported: 2.x
>
>
> There are two primary goals with my selections above:
> - Support end-user choices
> - Reduce maintenance costs
>
> It would be nice to support end-user scripts < 2.4, but that increases
> maintenance costs for us. I believe that 2.4 is a fair balance between
> user choice and our cost. During the 1.6 release process, we ended up
> bumping the minimum user version to 2.4. That happened without
> explicit discussion, so I'm bringing it up for closure on whether that
> is what we're going to shoot for.
>
> Also note that Python 3.0 is *not* part of the Developer toolset. Not
> even supported. I've been reviewing the changes on trunk for the 3.0
> compatibility effort with increasing concern. The changes introduce
> maintenance cost (*), yet with no perceivable benefit to the Developer
> community. If we confine our support to 2.x, then the dev toolset will
> be easier to expand, modify, and refine.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> (*) where "cost" means awareness and coding specifically for: variant
> imports, byte/string/unicode/encode/decide changes, syntax concerns,
> builtin function changes, special methods, etc.
>

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1580257
Received on 2009-04-07 19:15:42 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.