duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Michael Terry <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 30 March 2012 17:21, Kenneth Loafman <kenneth@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ubuntu is being overly aggressive.  At least they could put both Python 2.7
> and 3.2 in the same release and give better notice to the upstream
> developers.  I'm concerned that a single code base running on both 2 and 3
> will be unstable and difficult to maintain.

Ubuntu is being aggressive, agreed.  Their real must-have goal is to
drop it for the 14.04 LTS in two years.  Getting it done for 12.10 in
8 months might be a soft goal.  I'll know more about precisely how
aggressive we'll be for 12.10 after UDS in May.  But Barry Warsaw is
articulating a push now for it.  I think he wants to lead the
ecosystem towards Python 3 by example (and patches).

Part of this work is also to identify duplicity dependencies that
don't have Python 3 ports yet either and provide patches there.  So a
fair bit of work indeed.

> There is a need to continue supporting RHEL 5, I think.  We should be able
> to do so if we work the issues correctly. If not, then I guess it's EOL for
> RHEL 5 support from duplicity.  Ten years of support for a version is way to
> long in this fast paced industry.

If Ubuntu really wants to push for 12.10, I suspect they'll be willing
to carry a patch for at least one cycle as long as the patch isn't a
dead-end.  Which means as an upstream, you wouldn't have to abandon
RHEL 5 just yet.

I don't think duplicity code is changing so fast that such an
extensive patch would be *too* hard to maintain on top of trunk.

> As to a separate port, I really would hate to support two versions.  That's
> probably the reason 0.7.x has died.

Agreed.  And that's why I want to do it all in the same codebase,
without py2to3 or anything.  I hope that will reduce the maintenance
burden.

> Why won't you be working on this in the near future?

Oh, just because I'm likely busy with Ubuntu 12.04 and other work through April.

-mt