yeah, i had the feeling someone would sneak in redhat and their nonexistent releases... you know, being stuck with software from 2004 in 2011... how come people PAY money for that "support"?
okay, we'll keep python 2.4 support (even though it's ugly as shit :)) ======================================== alex, fruch, and the everyone -- i would value your opinion on this: do you think having the python3 code living side-by-side with the python2 code is better than two branches? i'm aware of the possible merge-nightmares, but i wonder what's worst... -tomer An NCO and a Gentleman On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 23:26, Jorge Maroto <[email protected]> wrote: > +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? > > >
