On 23.07.2015 17:01, Bert Huijben wrote: > I like this proposal... but I'm wondering in what case Linux build > environments need python. Those very old enterprise versions are > unlikely to have python 2.7 or newer.
When building from a tarball, you only need Python to run the test suite. There are certain edge cases in the Python syntax where it's almost impossible to be compatible with both 2.5/2.6 and 3.x. Because of that, and because 2.6 is no longer supporter by the Python devs, it makes sense to stop supporting those versions in 1.9/trunk. Those very old enterprise versions will just have to be upgraded, IMO. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: Branko Čibej <mailto:br...@wandisco.com> > Sent: 23-7-2015 11:02 > To: dev@subversion.apache.org <mailto:dev@subversion.apache.org> > Subject: Re: 1.9.0 minimal Python version > > On 23.07.2015 10:30, Stefan Hett wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>>> - For 1.9, it's a little late to make any changes, but I would > >>>> consider > >>>> dropping py2.5 support (and converting to the 'except' 'as' > >>>> syntax), > >>>> since for 1.9 py3 support is more important than py2.5 support. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >> I'd rather not mess with the 1.9 branch at this point ... we're so > close > >> to the release (I hope). > >> > >> -- Brane > > as a thought for the 1.9 case: > > In case you do not want to drop py2.5 support for 1.9 because it's > > released stating that minimum support already, would it be an option > > to still support py3 in a following patch (1.9.1)? For instance by > > providing py-script versions for older as well as later versions? > > > > Reasoning would be that given that SVN-versions have a lifetime of > > roughly 2 years before the successive version is released it'd be > > quite a limitation if that'd only work with a very old python version... > > > > As an alternative approach: You'd also consider mentioning a minimum > > requirement of python 2.6 just in the docs (no code changes yet) and > > then release 1.9.1 with the actual "fixes". So technically then even > > post release you would not change the minimal system requirements. > > > > (just some thoughts from a user's point of view, if that input would > > be of any benefit) > > Daniel and I have just been chatting about this on IRC, and we agreed > that it makes sense to just drop 2.5/2.6 support for 1.9 and trunk; the > proposal is that we declare support for 2.7, and at some point make > 1.9.x and trunk compatible with both 2.7 and 3.x. > > -- Brane
