On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:26:06PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:25:34PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> 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?

I doubt it - enough projects are running on Python 2 and 3 now that I
doubt there's anything unexpected left to hit.

>> 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.

I'll put it in the log message when I send this as a proper patch.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to