On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > Hi Jed, > > > > interesting, thanks for sharing. I don't think that there is a significant > > difference for PETSc users, since most Python installations come from > > package repositories (as shown on the page). On clusters I'd say that there > > is a slight bias towards older versions in general, not just Python. > > > > The article has massive selection bias: all people surveyed are actively > using Python in their work. Many PETSc users don't write Python at all, > PETSc is just using it for the build. If latter population was as > up-to-date as these astro folks, we'd be able to drop compatibility for > 10-year old versions of Python and upgrade a lot of cruddy code.
Since we use python for configure [which is supporsed to be portable] - we shouldn't be insiting on single/latest version of python - like any of these python applications can do. We have to support as many[and old] version as we can. Satish > > > > > > Best regards, > > Karli > > > > > > > > On 02/04/2013 07:06 PM, Jed Brown wrote: > > > >> Astro is doing a great job of staying up to date. I wonder what the > >> version distribution looks like for PETSc users. > >> > >> http://astrofrog.github.com/**blog/2013/01/13/what-python-** > >> installations-are-scientists-**using/<http://astrofrog.github.com/blog/2013/01/13/what-python-installations-are-scientists-using/> > >> > > > > >
