> On 14 Jan 2015, at 09:18, Przemyslaw Kaminski wrote:
>
> I just made a general remark regarding why migrating to 2.7 is
> profitable (I understood Bartek's question this way).
>
> The point about Red Hat guaranteeing security fixes to 2.6 is a good
> one. Also, it's true we don't use SSL for
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 08:50, Kamil Sambor wrote:
>
> Tomasz we are not using ssl in our client so now we not gain anything from
> moving to 2.7 .
I meant „security support” in terms of fixing security issues within Python
itself. For 2.6.x line it’s over, as Przemek mentioned above:
"With the
Guys,
The question not about "Do we want to drop 2.6 or not?". The question
about "Do we have resources to do that in this release cycle?". It may
be not as easy at it seems and it obviously requires additional
testing.
- Igor
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski
wrote:
> I jus
I just made a general remark regarding why migrating to 2.7 is
profitable (I understood Bartek's question this way).
The point about Red Hat guaranteeing security fixes to 2.6 is a good
one. Also, it's true we don't use SSL for fuelclient so yes, if other
OpenStack projects keep 2.6 we should stic
Tomasz we are not using ssl in our client so now we not gain anything from
moving to 2.7 .
Best regards,
– Kamil S.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski <
bpiotrow...@mirantis.com> wrote:
> On 01/13/2015 11:16 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote:
>
>>
>> On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przem
On 01/13/2015 11:16 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote:
On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przemyslaw Kaminski wrote:
For example
https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/
"All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security patches,
has ended."
https://hg.python.org/cpython/raw-file/v2.7.9/M
On 01/13/2015 11:16 PM, Tomasz Napierala wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przemyslaw Kaminski wrote:
>>
>> For example
>>
>> https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/
>>
>> "All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security patches,
>> has ended."
>>
>> https://hg.python.org/
> On 13 Jan 2015, at 10:51, Przemyslaw Kaminski wrote:
>
> For example
>
> https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/
>
> "All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security patches,
> has ended."
>
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/raw-file/v2.7.9/Misc/NEWS
>
> Especially the SS
For example
https://www.python.org/download/releases/2.6.9/
"All official maintenance for Python 2.6, including security patches,
has ended."
https://hg.python.org/cpython/raw-file/v2.7.9/Misc/NEWS
Especially the SSL stuff is interesting
http://bugs.python.org/issue22935
P.
On 01/13/2015 08:
On 01/12/2015 03:55 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
Folks,
as it was planned and then announced at the OpenStack summit OpenStack services
deprecated Python-2.6 support. At the moment several services and libraries are
already only compatible with Python>=2.7. And there is no common sense in
t
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> as it was planned and then announced at the OpenStack summit OpenStack
> services deprecated Python-2.6 support. At the moment several services and
> libraries are already only compatible with Python>=2.7. And there is n
The python27 packages Ihar has linked do not conflict with the system
python 2.6, so I don't see any problems with the rollback here.
Is rollback the only concern for the master node upgrade use case?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
>>> Client uses REST API to in
Hi Dmitry,
>> Client uses REST API to interact with Fuel, how is Python version a
factor?
Fuel client is written in python it means it won't work on the master node
with 2.6 python if you drop compatibility with it.
>> What exactly is the use cases that requires a new client deployed on an
old F
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> Agree with Igor, I think we cannot just drop compatibility for fuel client
> with 2.6 python,
Hm, didn't Igor say in his email that "we have to drop python 2.6 support"?
> the reason is we have old master nodes which have
> 2.6 python, and the
Hi,
Agree with Igor, I think we cannot just drop compatibility for fuel client
with 2.6 python, the reason is we have old master nodes which have
2.6 python, and the newer fuel client should work fine on these
environments.
Or we can try to install python 2.7 on the master during the upgrade.
As
You can get Python 2.7 via SCL:
https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/scls/rhscl/python27/
On 01/12/2015 05:32 PM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
Hi, Roman,
Indeed, we have to go forward and drop python 2.6 support. That's how
it supposed to be, but, unfortunately, it may not be as easy as it
seems at
Hi, Roman,
Indeed, we have to go forward and drop python 2.6 support. That's how
it supposed to be, but, unfortunately, it may not be as easy as it
seems at first glance.
Fuel Master is flying on top of Cent OS 6.5 which doesn't have python
2.7 at all. So we must either run master node on Cent OS
17 matches
Mail list logo
