FYI, Chromium folks on Windows will be on python 2.6 real soon(tm). The CL to bug them to upgrade should be committed within the next few minutes.
[Thread hijack] If you're not a Chromium-Webkit committer running on Windows, please ignore the rest of this email. Otherwise, please "del depot_tools\python.bat" and run "gclient". Thanks, M-A 2010/3/19 Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org>: > Awesome! > > /me goes and comments on the bug. > > Adam > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdo...@webkit.org> wrote: >> Mechanize (and ClientForm on which it depends) does work with Python 2.4: >> >> http://wwwsearch.sourceforge.net/mechanize/ >> >> (See the section on compatibility.) >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> My understanding is that some of the libraries we use, like Mechanize, >>> don't work in Python 2.4. My complaint in Bug 36063 is that we're >>> re-implementing Mechanize poorly. I'd rather we just upgraded the >>> machines that need to run-webkit-tests to a more modern version of >>> Python. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdo...@webkit.org> >>> wrote: >>>> No one responded back with a summary of the Python 2.4 discussion, so >>>> I'll attempt a summary of my own after reading-- >>>> >>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35584 >>>> >>>> (If you recall, we are trying to decide what Python code we write >>>> needs to work with Python 2.4.) >>>> >>>> The Chromium project still uses Python 2.4 in a significant way. Some >>>> Chromium bots run new-run-webkit-tests using 2.4, and a number of >>>> developers use 2.4 in their development environments. Generally >>>> speaking, people support upgrading, but no one is spearheading an >>>> upgrade and there is no ETA. >>>> >>>> For the time being, because of the bots, it seems like >>>> new-run-webkit-tests definitely needs to keep working with 2.4. But >>>> for the tools used more in the development environment (webkit-patch, >>>> etc), it seems like people would be willing to find a way to make >>>> things work with 2.5+. >>>> >>>> It would be pretty easy to get all of our Python code working with 2.4 >>>> (we had a patch for this a couple weeks ago), but going back wouldn't >>>> let us use some of the nicer constructs. And we would have to contend >>>> with at least one bug in 2.4. >>>> >>>> (End of summary.) >>>> >>>> Plainly, the options seem to be-- >>>> >>>> (1) All Python 2.5+ >>>> (2) All Python 2.4 >>>> (3) Some combination of (1) and (2) (e.g. new-run-webkit-tests 2.4, >>>> everything else 2.5) >>>> >>>> However, (1) does not seem to be an option. Personally, I'm starting >>>> to lean more toward to (2). One reason is that we are already >>>> starting to see a case of re-implementing in Python 2.4 (for >>>> new-run-webkit-tests) code that was already written in 2.5: >>>> >>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36063#c4 >>>> >>>> I also think it would be helpful if we did not need to have this >>>> discussion for each new script we decide to write in Python. I would >>>> be willing to update the patch from a couple weeks ago that adjusts >>>> things for 2.4. >>>> >>>> --Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdo...@webkit.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Kilzer <ddkil...@webkit.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, March 4, 2010 at 5:35:08 PM, William Siegrist wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since I have a Tiger machine handy, I tested this and was able to build >>>>>>> python >>>>>>> 2.5.5 from MacPorts on a PowerPC. It takes a while, but it worked. I >>>>>>> did not try >>>>>>> python 2.6. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've installed python 2.6.4 using MacPorts on my PowerBook G4 running >>>>>> Tiger 10.4.11, and it's worked find with webkit-patch the one or two >>>>>> times I tried it. >>>>> >>>>> That sounds great. Thanks a lot, Dave and Bill. So does it seem safe >>>>> to say, then, that folks on 2.3 can upgrade if it ever becomes >>>>> necessary to use one of the tools? >>>>> >>>>> As for Python 2.4, I haven't been following the discussion as closely >>>>> since it seems to affect Chromium developers more. Can someone >>>>> summarize the state of the discussion there -- does it seem like there >>>>> is a consensus? >>>>> >>>>> --Chris >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >>>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
