Inline… On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote:
> Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I have not yet figured out how to port. [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > since > > this version is EOL after this year. > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > [email protected]>: > > > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to > > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > structs, > > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted > to > > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to > keep > > > these things around. > > > >
