On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:13:54 PM UTC-3, Gregory P. Smith wrote: > > [resending, initial send didn't make it to the list] > > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:06:34 AM UTC-7, Roberto Alsina wrote: >> >> Hello, as part of porting one a product to Python 3, we are willing to >> port protobuf which is one of our dependencies. >> >> Would a python 2.6 / 3.3 codebase be acceptable for merging upstream? Or >> would it have to support 2.4? >> >> I ask because the effor to achieve both is quite different. >> > > I'd aim for 2.6 / 3.2 rather than 3.3 because 3.2 is the python 3 version > available as a package in recent stable linux distros. We're primarily > using 2.6 (soon 2.7) at Google. People with a need for support of Python > versions earlier than 2.6 should be able to use an older release of the > protobuf compiler. > > I will talk with the devs. If it's significantly less effort to aim for 3.3, we may go with that, if it's not, then 3.2
> Obviously I haven't spent any time on porting it to Python 3 yet. Hit me > up for code reviews or discussion as you see fit. We'll be needing this as > well but some other work for our 3.x transition has been a higher priority > for me so far so getting to this has been further down my list. > > My rough thoughts on python 3.x support for protobuf: > > I'd be awesome if the protobuf Python libraries & tests used by the > generated code could be safe in both 2.6 and 3.2 without the need for > conversion using 2to3. But... that can get messy depending on the code. > If that gets messy, at least make sure that it convert cleanly with 2to3. > > The protoc generated code has more options: work in both, work when passed > through 2to3, or generate 2.x and 3.x specific versions of the code based > on a protoc command line flag. > I am aiming for generating version specific code via option. > > I prefer anything that avoids a 2to3 step when possible. A build system > already needs to know which version of python it is targeting so it seems > reasonable to pass a protoc command line flag but I'm not wedded to that > idea. > > After reading what I wrote above and comparing it to my post to this list > last year quoted below, the main thing that has changed is that I don't > care about 2.4 anymore. :) > > Which is good :-) > -gps > > PS in order to accept patches upstream we'll need a contributor license > agreement signed. Quoting previous messages asking for that: > """ > http://code.google.com/legal/individual-cla-v1.0.html -- If you own > copyright on your patch. (This can be signed via a simple web form at the > bottom of the page.) > http://code.google.com/legal/corporate-cla-v1.0.html -- If your employer > does. > >> >>> That should not be a problem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/protobuf/-/0rcEMnJPz6MJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
