+1 to python 2.4 I agree RH is guilty for that, but there is a good amount of users you should not just ignore (me included :)).
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:41 PM, David Moss <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
