Tim, Yes work is now on default.
python3-port branch is now closed. -Bill On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Tim Jenness <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2016, at 22:26, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 16:39 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> > >> After a bunch of work py2 is passing all tests on python3-port > >> branch. > >> So I've merged that to default and closed the python3-port branch. > > > > Thanks for all your work on this, it's great to have a single branch > > that is the focus of all effort. > > > >> All further changes/pull requests for py2/3 should be done against > >> default. > > > > I will try and get the "futurize -2" stuff going now. I think there are > > no remnants of the earlier six based effort that are not consistent > > with future. I think the six based effort was well worth it when it was > > tried, but now we do not have to support 2.6 removing six and using > > future is the right thing to do. > > > > Russell — I’m taking a look again at python3 scons. Am I now meant to be > looking at the default branch for scons on bitbucket? Is there work > happening on a new branch anywhere? > > I’ve had a go at futurize -2 but there’s an issue in the boostrap.py > importing that I need to look at (importing of rpm as a namespace). I’m > just asking to ensure I’m looking at the right current state of python3. > > — > Tim Jenness > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
