I thought people said there were issues with 2.6 that prevented the same code working in 3.x. But indeed there's still a lot of python2.6 out there; if we could support 2.6, 2.7 and 3.x (x>=3) that would be a superb outcome.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 10:12 +0000, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) wrote: > > Those of us who aren't so active and are still on python 2.6 are going > to be less happy, especially if we aren't entirely in control of which > version of python we get to use. > > << I thought I had replied to this, but cannot see it. If an earlier > version turns up, sorry for the duplication. >> > > RHEL appears determined to stay with Python 2.6 and I guess many other > have to as well. I was originally for the 2.7 floor to get at all the > backports of 3.3 stuff as and when. However if there are many SCons > users in need of executing on 2.6, and now that we know many projects > who are being Python 2 and Python 3 compliant are choosing 2.6, 2.7 and > 3.3+ as their compliance list and succeeding (*), I wonder if SCons > should revert the 2.7 floor decision and consider a 2.6 floor decision. > > > (*) 2,5 and earlier are ignored as are 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2. > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > > -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
