> On Dec. 2, 2015, 11:31 p.m., Michael Park wrote:
> > support/mesos-style.py, line 6
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/diff/6/?file=1150508#file1150508line6>
> >
> >     Why the introduction of the `print` function? Can't we just use `print` 
> > and `.format`?
> 
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
>     This was some drive-by future proofing. 
>     
>     In python-3.0 `print` can only be called as a function (`print("foo")`) 
> and the python-2.X syntax used around here (`print "foo"`) isn't available 
> anymore. The `print` function becomes available in python-2.6.0, but in the 
> shebang we pick whatever python interpreter is in `$PATH`. If we can drop 
> support for python-2.5 or earlier (not sure if it is still supported with 
> what is in here) we don't need to import it from `__future__`.

Can we take this on as a separate ticket/task? We have a bunch of python 
scripts, all of them seem to assume Python 2.


- Michael


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/#review108745
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 3, 2015, 12:02 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 3, 2015, 12:02 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Marco Massenzio, and Michael Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3581
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3581
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Review: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   support/mesos-style.py 66b45692c3c04f68358b63d52e4d87934f241bd7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40445/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Ran the a whole clean checkout through the linter with only one expected 
> failure (`3rdparty/libprocess/stout/tests/protobuf_tests.proto` which lacks a 
> license).
> 
> 
> NOTE TO THE COMMITTER
> ---------------------
> 
> Before committing this, it is probably a good idea to check the whole code 
> base again and fix any new files which do not follow the current license 
> style. The commits which originally fixed this were
> 
> * fa36917 (mesos),
> * dc23756 (stout), and
> * 3539b7a (libprocess).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to