Hi! I\m also very interested in prtobuf support inPy3. Are there any newsin this topic?
W dniu środa, 11 lipca 2012 14:59:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Roberto Alsina napisał: > > 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 unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
