On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:23 AM Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, and I think the branch is now ready for merge 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? I wouldn't postpone 1.13.0 for it. I suppose the best way is that we propose it for backport for 1.13.1, shortly after 1.13.0 has been released. Also: the swig-py3 branch does not break our support for py2. With that branch, both py2 and py3 swig-bindings can be built and run fine. > What should we do about swig-py3 support in 1.12.x and 1.10.x, which are both > LTS? Only 1.10.x is LTS (and 1.9.x perhaps? But ISTR we eol'ed that). I suppose a backport to 1.10.x would be a good idea, so we have at least one LTS release this year that supports py3. > 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? I think we should mention it at least in the 1.13.0 release notes, in the known issues section, and announce our plan to address it in 1.13.1 or something like that? -- Johan
