JDevlieghere added a comment. In D112212#3081935 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212#3081935>, @dblaikie wrote:
> In D112212#3081828 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212#3081828>, @JDevlieghere > wrote: > >> In D112212#3080491 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212#3080491>, @teemperor >> wrote: >> >>> This LGTM, but `shlex.join` is actually Py3 exclusive and I don't think >>> there is a good Py2 replacement. I think we're just in time for the Py2->3 >>> migration according to the timeline Jonas posted last year >>> <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2020-August/016388.html>, so >>> let's use this patch to actually do that? Then we can also get rid of all >>> the `six` stuff etc. >>> >>> Let's see if Jonas has any objections against dropping Py2 with this, >>> otherwise this is good to go. >> >> We're planning to branch from open source on October 26th. If there's no >> urgency, it would really be great if we can hold off breaking Py2 until then. >> >> I'm all in favor for getting rid of Python 2 support, but sweeping changes >> like dropping the `six` stuff will introduce a lot of headaches (merge >> conflicts) for us. If we could postpone that for another release that would >> save us a bunch of engineering time. > > No judgment (I think it's a reasonable request to punt a patch like this a > few days if it helps out major contributors) - but I'm curious/just not quite > wrapping my head around: Why would it be easier if this sort of patch went in > after you branch? I'd have thought it'd be easier if it goes in before the > branch. That way when you're backporting patches from upstream after the > branch there will be fewer unrelated changes/merge conflicts, yeah? The patch introduces a dependency on Python 3 and unfortunately we still have a small (but important) group of users that haven't fully migrated yet. If the patch were to land before the branch, I'd have to revert it (same result) or find a way to do what `shlex.join` does in Python 2. I did a quick search yesterday and didn't immediately find a good alternative and with the timeline I've given in the past, I also don't think the burden should be on the patch author (Pavel). So that's why I suggested holding off on landing it. If it does turn out to cause a lot of conflicts, I can always reconsider. But yes, backporting is a real concern, which is the main reason I'm asking not to start making big mechanical changes like replacing all the `six` stuff unless there's a pressing reason to do so. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
