John Keeping <> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> John Keeping <> writes:
>>> As more people have started trying to support Python 3 in the wild, it
>>> has become clear that it is often easier to have a single codebase that
>>> works with both Python 2 and Python 3, and not use 2to3.
>>> It is for this reason that the Unicode literal prefix was reintroduced.
>> Yes, and from that perspective, placing floor on earlier 3.x makes
>> tons of sense, no?
>> These early versions may not be unstable in the "this does not
>> behave as specified in the language specification for 3.x" sense,
>> but for the purpose of running scripts meant to be executable by
>> both 2.x and 3.x series, the early 3.x versions are not as good as
>> later versions where Python folks started making deliberate effort
>> to support them.
> As far as I'm aware (and having reviewed the release notes for 3.1, 3.2
> and 3.3 as well as the planned features for 3.4), Unicode literals are
> the only feature to have been added that was intended to make it easier
> to support Python 2 and 3 in the same codebase.

So there may be some other incompatibility lurking that we may run
into later?

> Given that no code currently on pu uses Unicode literals, I don't see a
> reason to specify a minimum version of Python 3 since we're already
> restricting ourselves to features in 2.6.

OK, at least that reasoning need to be kept somewhere, either in the
documentation of in the log message.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to