As a side note, I think it is important that end-users understand that we will always require the "latest" release of 2.7 so that we can fully leverage 3.X back-ported tools.
V/R, William On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:35 PM, William Blevins <wblevins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshor...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> On 25.02.2015 22:55, Russel Winder wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 21:28 +0100, i...@fibrecode.com wrote: >>> >>>> Question, >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>> >>> Why not put python2.7 in stable branch for maintenance only, and just >>>> work >>>> on python3 in trunk. >>>> >>> >>> Pragmatically, the right place to be is Python 2.7 and Python 3.4 >>> compliance in a single code base. This is fairly straightforward >>> compared to all other solutions, provided we can get the person power >>> harnessed – not entirely straightforward in a project with only >>> volunteer labour. >>> >>> >> +1, and I think the big part of the work is already done. We just need to >> focus our efforts on the remaining 5% (which admittedly might have a lot of >> hard nuts in them) for some time...and can make it happen. >> >> Dirk >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> Scons-dev@scons.org >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> > > +1, I agree with trying to support 2.7 and 3.X within a single code base. > We may reach a case were this become impractical, but I think we should at > least make an initial effort to understand this cases if they exist. > > I am on board with the proposal for working this issue out of "trunk" once > 2.5 is released. Making updates can follow the same path for standard > release fixes and 3.X port work; thus, facilitating the mentality to keep > new changes 3.X compliant, and possibly reducing the total workload. > > V/R, > William >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev