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

1.13.x and swig-py3 (was: Re: Test failures with Python 3 (Re: PMCs: any Hackathon requests? (deadline 11 October)))

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 23:22:55 +0000

Yasuhito FUTATSUKI wrote on Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 23:09:19 +0900:
> On 2019/10/16 21:12, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > This makes me wonder: should that be fixed specifically on trunk, and
> > nominated for backport to 1.13, so we can possibly claim basic support
> > for Python 3 in our build and test processes (in at least one released
> > version) before the end of this year?
> >
> > Or should we reintegrate the swig-py3 branch ASAP, and nominate *that*
> > for backport to 1.13, so we can have Python 3 support, including swig
> > bindings?
> I prefer the latter, as one of users :) I want to use
> tools/hook-scripts/mailer/mailer.py with Python 3.

If we want this to happen, we should first of all complete the swig-py3 branch
and merge it to trunk.

What's not clear to me is what would happen afterwards. Is anyone proposing to
delay 1.13.0 until swig-py3 is merged (remember that we are already more than
halfway through the soak)? If not, how would merging swig-py3 to 1.13.x
coexist with the premise of "no destabilizing changes in patch releases"?
Would we have to delay merging swig-py3 to 1.13.x until January, when py2 has
finally gone out of support?

What should we do about swig-py3 support in 1.12.x and 1.10.x, which are both LTS?

Should we say anything about swig-py2 / swig-py3 in the release notes _today_,
before 1.13.0 has been released, about our plans for 1.13.x patch releases?
Received on 2019-10-19 01:23:04 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.