Daniel J. Popowich wrote .. > > Graham Dumpleton (JIRA) writes: > > If mod_python is to still support Python 2.2, which it looks like we > > are still because of Nokia work, then can't use the Python bool type > > yet as that was only added to Python 2.3. > > But can't a decision be made? I think deciding by not deciding is > less than an ideal design process. It sure would be nice to have a > decisive: We support python versions 2.x and greater. > > So, what's x? > > Seems like a "core developer" vote, but my 2-cents is I'm hoping it's > 3, for the same reasons I outlined in a previous thread: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/python-dev@httpd.apache.org/msg01127.html
Version 3.2.7 was made to be able to work with Python 2.2. http://www.mail-archive.com/python-dev@httpd.apache.org/msg01123.html Your right though. I'm not sure if a final policy was stated that 2.2 and later would be supported, there was a sort of consensus, but no actual official statement unless I missed it. FWIW, the last production system I have to deal with that has Python 2.2 will be upgraded to Python 2.3 in the next month, so on that point it makes no difference to me. At the moment, I don't think we loose anything by still supporting 2.2. That is, there is nothing specific in 2.3 which would be of huge benefit. Thus, no harm still supporting 2.2 at least for mod_python 3.2.X stream. We may well want to reconsider that for mod_python 3.3 stream. The particular patch I was talking about is going to go into 3.2.X stream, so should still work for Python 2.2. Thus, let us at least state that mod_python 3.2.X will retain support for Python 2.2. As to the mod_python 3.3 stream, there would be no gaurantees that Python 2.2 will be supported. Yes I realise this is deferring the decision again, but at the moment we don't know how long before 3.3 is done. If it takes a while, as it probably will, then by then, saying that Python 2.3 only is supported will probably be a quite reasonable thing to do. Graham
