On 12/1/2012 2:29 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
The bump to Python 2.6 seemed to go OK. So, I think it's time to finish
the transition and bump the minimum to Python 2.7.
Per the previous discussion on this list, I don't believe we have any
outstanding objections. So, I propose we move forward with t
Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
> If there are any objections, please voice them now.
Can we re-post this as an entirely new thread, out of shear luck I
noticed it, though its buried in the middle of my threaded view for way
back in September. In a thread I have long since chosen to ignore since
I knew th
The bump to Python 2.6 seemed to go OK. So, I think it's time to finish
the transition and bump the minimum to Python 2.7.
Per the previous discussion on this list, I don't believe we have any
outstanding objections. So, I propose we move forward with this as soon
as we have confirmation that
Inbound now requires Python 2.6:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/09dc2dc1fc9f
Expect this to hit central in the next day or two.
If you find a distro that doesn't ship Python 2.6, we have a tool in the
tree to perform system bootstrapping (python/mozboot). We should teac
The general consensus seems to be "2.7 is good," so I filed
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=800614 to have configure
enforce Python 2.6 as the minimum required to *build* the tree. Note
that building is different from running tests (some test runners still
run on Python 2.5 and Tal
On 9/9/2012 2:03 PM, Justin Lebar wrote:
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
I'm totally in favor of using the latest and greatest that's available.
Me too. I'm in favor of putting all the automation (build & test) on 2.7.3:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724191
Clint
MozillaBuild is currently shipping with 2.7.2. Lately, I've been
planning to update a few things in there, though, and upgrading it to
2.7.3 is on my list.
A few days ago, I filed bug 788911 for MozillaBuild to upgrade to 2.7.3.
-Gary
___
dev-platform
MozillaBuild is currently shipping with 2.7.2. Lately, I've been
planning to update a few things in there, though, and upgrading it to
2.7.3 is on my list.
A few days ago, I filed bug 788911 for MozillaBuild to upgrade to 2.7.3.
-Gary
___
dev-platform
On 9/10/12 10:41 AM, Gary Kwong wrote:
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
Rob Miller just pointed me to https://github.com/collective/buildout.python
In two shell commands I was able to install Python 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,
3.2, and 3.3 side-by-side. It was practically effortless.
On Monday, September 10, 2012 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, RyanVM wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 2:35 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
> >> So, 2.6 or 2.7?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up! Count me as another vote for 2.7. I don't like
>
On 9/10/2012 2:35 PM, Dave Mandelin wrote:
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
Thanks for bringing this up! Count me as another vote for 2.7. I don't like
using obsolete language versions outside of necessity, and I've never found it
difficult
On Sunday, September 9, 2012 12:54:29 PM UTC-7, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> So, 2.6 or 2.7?
Thanks for bringing this up! Count me as another vote for 2.7. I don't like
using obsolete language versions outside of necessity, and I've never found it
difficult to install Python.
I think MozillaBuild is
So, 2.6 or 2.7?
Ideally 2.7. Releng also prefers python to be identical across build
machines, and new build machines are having some flavor of Python 2.7
installed (ref bug 602908).
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602908#c16
-Gary
__
On 09/09/2012 10:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Paul ADENOT wrote:
The next Ubuntu release will include Python 3, and not Python 2.x (on a
default install).
However, as you note, Python 2.7 will be available as a separate package. I
just wanted to mention that,
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Paul ADENOT wrote:
> The next Ubuntu release will include Python 3, and not Python 2.x (on a
> default install).
>
> However, as you note, Python 2.7 will be available as a separate package. I
> just wanted to mention that, considering the number of people that use
On 12-09-09 12:54 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> So, 2.6 or 2.7?
2.7. It's fairly widely deployed these days and has some nice features
over 2.6. Upgrading our build slaves won't be any more work for the one
or the other.
I believe MacOS 10.6 ships with 2.6, but not 2.7, if that's a drawback.
-r
> So, 2.6 or 2.7?
I'm totally in favor of using the latest and greatest that's available.
As additional background: Python 2.7 is the last major release in the
Python 2 line [1]. So the next time we have this discussion about
upgrading our Python requirement, we won't be choosing between version
Linux distros are all over the map. Many include 2.7 as part of the
standard distribution. If they don't, they often include a "python27"
package. Or, at least it is a popular enough package that someone on the
internets provides an RPM, .deb, etc. We would just need to point people
at those in th
The subject of which version of Python to require to build the tree came
up in bug 784841.
We currently require Python >= 2.5 but <3 to build the tree. The main
reason for the 2.5 requirement is the Linux build slaves still run
Python 2.5. Those of us who code Python for the tree have long wan
19 matches
Mail list logo
