duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Michael Terry <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hrm.  OK.  I wonder if we can't offer an option to 2to3 on the fly during
setup.py if the user wants to install for python3.
-mt


On 14 January 2013 12:32, <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx> wrote:

> as we don't really have hurry with that decision i vote for keeping an eye
> out how stable the next 0.6 release works out, and reconsidering a move to
> a python2.6+ duplicity 0.7 again thereafter.
>
> ..ede
>
>
> On 14.01.2013 15:44, Michael Terry wrote:
> > My personal push for Python 3 support is because Ubuntu is pushing to be
> able to ship only Python 3 on the desktop image.  (Plus, Python 2.7 is the
> last Python 2.x.  We're at the end of that life line.)
> >
> > In that context, dropping support for Python 2.4 is important because it
> is vastly simpler to write a codebase that works in both 2.6 and 3.x than
> 2.4 and 3.x.
> >
> > -mt
> >
> >
> > On 14 January 2013 09:43, Michael Terry <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> mike@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >     My personal push for Python 3 support is because Ubuntu is pushing
> to be able to ship only Python 3 on the desktop image.  (Plus, Python 2.7
> is the last Python 2.x.  We're at the end of that life line.)
> >
> >     In that context, dropping support for Python 2.4 is important
> because it is vastly simpler to write a codebase that works in both 2.6 and
> 3.x than 2.4 and 3.x.
> >
> >     -mt
> >
> >
> >     On 14 January 2013 05:46, <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:
> edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> >         i'd limit it to data critical fixes. we simply have no man power
> to maintain both series. on the other hand, what exactly is pressing us to
> python3 or even python2.6..
> >         isn't it merely keeping an eye out not to hack something
> backwards incompatible?
> >         if so, we could simply announce that we do not strive to meet
> this criteria anymore, but still accept contributions of people or hack
> something if we feel we shouldn't exclude users with very old systems.
> >
> >         meaning: announce 0.7 with python2.6 compatibility and
> developing it non dogmatic against it. phasing out 0.6 alltogether.
> >
> >         ..ede
> >
> >
> >         On 13.01.2013 18:29, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> >         > I think we have to continue support of the 0.6 series for a
> while, open to discussion.
> >         >
> >         > As to 0.7, good idea.  New features can be added here, fixes
> go to both series.
> >         >
> >         > ...Ken
> >         >
> >         > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:54 AM, <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:
> edgar.soldin@xxxxxx> <mailto:edgar.soldin@xxxxxx <mailto:
> edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >         >
> >         >     On 13.01.2013 02:25, Michael Terry wrote:
> >         >     > Hello!  Yet another thread on the slow march to Python 3
> support.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > The last place we left it was that Ubuntu was
> considering throwing some effort behind porting duplicity and maintaining
> such a patch themselves.  That didn't happen for manpower reasons.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > But I notice that Red Hat just passed (Jan 8, 2013) the
> end of "Production 1" for RHEL 5 [1].  Which is the first milestone on the
> way to RHEL 5 end of life (which won't be fully dead until 2020).
> >         >     >
> >         >     > I believe that is the point in which duplicity bumped
> from Python 2.3 to 2.4 (the end of Production 1 for RHEL 4), right?
> >         >     >
> >         >     > I propose that after 0.6.21 ships, the next release be
> versioned 0.7.0 with a minimum Python of 2.6.  And that we don't intend to
> make further 0.6.x releases unless we discover a data corruption issue.
> >         >     >
> >         >     > That way, we (I) can start working on patches that take
> use of 'future' imports and such with an eye towards eventually one of the
> 0.7.x releases working with Python 3 (while still keeping Python 2.6
> compatibility).
> >         >     >
> >         >
> >         >     sounds good to me. but let's wait a bit after 0.6.21 and
> decide considering the criticality of open bugs if we just do another 0.6
> round or switch to 0.7 already.
> >         >     but generally yes.
> >         >
> >         >     ..ede
> >         >
> >         >     _______________________________________________
> >         >     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team> <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team>
> >         >     Post to     : duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:
> duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> >         >     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team> <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team>
> >         >     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >         >
> >         >
> >
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team>
> >         Post to     : duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:
> duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >         Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team <
> https://launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team>
> >         More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> > Post to     : duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> Post to     : duplicity-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~duplicity-team
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>