dblaikie added a comment. In D112212#3082352 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112212#3082352>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> 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. Ah, fair enough - thanks for the context! (given that it'd be a matter of reverting the patch on your release branch - doesn't seem like a huge difference, but also easy to wait a few days) - *nod* cleanup's hopefully not too expensive to defer for a little while longer, if it's not getting in the way of some feature work. 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
