Mostly due to Redhat's glacial support cycles ... On 9 Mar 2011, at 19:11, yairchu <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 to Python 2.4 > > I get the impression that Python 2.4 is widely used in well-known tech > giants. > > On Mar 9, 8:10 pm, Tal Einat <[email protected]> wrote: >> Indeed Python 2.5 has been around for many years and is a reasonable minimum >> version to support IMO. >> >> Python 2.5 added with blocks, conditional expressions and unified >> try/except/finally, among other things. It would be a shame to deprive >> ourselves of using these features in the RPyC codebase. Versions 2.6 and >> 2.7, on the other hand, didn't add as many empowering features. >> >> +1 on Python 2.5 as the oldest supported 2.x version. >> >> - Tal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Tomer Filiba <[email protected]> wrote: >>> do you think it's feasible to have a single codebase for the two versions? >> >>> at first i thought the changes would be minimal -- but they turned out to >>> be quite numerous. >>> and it's not only syntax -- brine and vinegar had to be partially >>> rewritten, as well as lots of small changes, >>> like items() instead of iteritems() and byte strings instead of strings. >> >>> i think maintaining the two versions in the same codebase would be a >>> nightmare... >>> everything would be so cumbersome and tedious. >> >>> another idea i had was to have a xxx3.py version of every xxx.py module, so >>> they all live side by side, >>> but i don't think it makes much sense. >> >>> ========== >> >>> on a side note, what is the minimum version of python do you people think >>> RPyC should support? >>> i think 2.5 is early enough (been released in 2006)... should we retain 2.4 >>> compatibility? >> >>> -tomer >> >>> An NCO and a Gentleman >> >>> 2011/3/8 Alex Grönholm <[email protected]> >> >>> I see that you've put some py3k only code in the master3 branch. What's >>>> your plan? Are you abandoning the idea of compatibility code and a shared >>>> codebase?
