> On Dec. 2, 2015, 11:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote: > > support/mesos-style.py, line 6 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/diff/6/?file=1150508#file1150508line6> > > > > Why the introduction of the `print` function? Can't we just use `print` > > and `.format`? > > Benjamin Bannier wrote: > This was some drive-by future proofing. > > In python-3.0 `print` can only be called as a function (`print("foo")`) > and the python-2.X syntax used around here (`print "foo"`) isn't available > anymore. The `print` function becomes available in python-2.6.0, but in the > shebang we pick whatever python interpreter is in `$PATH`. If we can drop > support for python-2.5 or earlier (not sure if it is still supported with > what is in here) we don't need to import it from `__future__`. > > Michael Park wrote: > Can we take this on as a separate ticket/task? We have a bunch of python > scripts, all of them seem to assume Python 2.
I filed MESOS-4054, and reverted to a `print "foo"` style. - Benjamin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/#review108745 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 3, 2015, 9:29 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 3, 2015, 9:29 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Marco Massenzio, and Michael Park. > > > Bugs: MESOS-3581 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3581 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445 > > > Diffs > ----- > > support/mesos-style.py 66b45692c3c04f68358b63d52e4d87934f241bd7 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Ran the a whole clean checkout through the linter with only one expected > failure (`3rdparty/libprocess/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto` which lacks a > license). > > > NOTE TO THE COMMITTER > --------------------- > > Before committing this, it is probably a good idea to check the whole code > base again and fix any new files which do not follow the current license > style. The commits which originally fixed this were > > * fa36917 (mesos), > * dc23756 (stout), and > * 3539b7a (libprocess). > > > Thanks, > > Benjamin Bannier > >
