I just made a general remark regarding why migrating to 2.7 is profitable (I understood Bartek's question this way).
The point about Red Hat guaranteeing security fixes to 2.6 is a good one. Also, it's true we don't use SSL for fuelclient so yes, if other OpenStack projects keep 2.6 we should stick to it also. P. On 01/14/2015 08:32 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 01/13/2015 11:16 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote: >> >>> On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przemyslaw Kaminski >>> <pkamin...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> >>> For example >>> >>> https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/ >>> >>> "All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security >>> patches, has ended." >>> >>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/raw-file/v2.7.9/Misc/NEWS >>> >>> Especially the SSL stuff is interesting >>> >>> http://bugs.python.org/issue22935 >> >> This looks like final word here. We cannot provide software, that >> has no security support. >> >> Regards, >> > > I can hardly see it as a justification for maintaining yet another > package on our own while Red Hat is supposed to provide backports > of security fixes to python 2.6 until 2020. > > I wanted to hear exact use cases of 2.7 features that allow us to > accomplish things easier than it is now with 2.6. As Doug already > said, clients and Oslo libraries will maintain compatibility with > 2.6. So what is the real gain? > > Regards, Bartłomiej > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev