Hi James, On Oct 01, 2013, at 03:36 PM, James Henstridge wrote:
>I think it is past time that we support Python 3. Given the >development resources we've got for Storm though, we probably can't >easily support two parallel code bases if we also want to still >support 2.x (definitely still a requirement for the Canonical projects >using Storm). Given Storm's test coverage, we've got a good chance of >getting the code base to a point where it runs on both versions >though. > >Doing that is a lot easier if we raise the minimum required Python >version to 2.6 or 2.7. Is that likely to inconvenience anyone? For me, supporting only 2.7 and 3.3 would be fine. That combination has a lot of good history for single-code base bi-lingual Python[*]. Also supporting 2.6 and 3.2 probably isn't too much more difficult, and it may be worthwhile depending on other clients of Storm inside and outside of Canonical. But I personally don't care about those older versions. I'm happy chime in, advise, test, and review, but I don't have much time to work on the port unfortunately, despite the fact that I would dearly love it. Cheers, -Barry [*] without using 2to3, please! ;)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- storm mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm
