On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:41:40 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote: > > Even if it weren't slow, I still wouldn't use it to automatically > > convert code at install time; a single codebase is easier to reason > > about, and easier to support. Users send me tracebacks all the time; > > having them match the source is a wonderful thing. > > Yeah, if single source doesn't work, then I think Antoine's suggested > way (i.e. convert once, then maintain two distinct branches and > builds, the way python-dev did for years with the standard library) is > a more sane option.
My suggestion is actually to convert each time you pull changes from the 2.x sources. You have three branches: - the default 2.x branch - a branch containing changesets which are pristine 2to3 runs over the 2.x codebase - a branch containing the modified 3.x code The 2to3 branch can be updated through an automatic script. Each changeset should be a child of both the previous 2to3 changeset, and the 2.x changeset which 2to3 has been run on (in other words, each changeset - except the first one - is a merge). Then the changes from the 2to3 branch are simply merged to the 3.x branch. This is the only manual step, in that you have to fix potential conflicts and regressions. (I suppose the strategy can be reversed, i.e. maintain code primarily in the 3.x branch and use 3to2 to backport them to the 2.x codebase) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
