duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[edso <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>]

exactly my point, from a stability standpoint though :) ..ede

On 28.04.2014 17:18, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
> Hmmm, this is getting complicated, but I see your points.
> 
> We can test against 2.4 and 2.5 using the answers here:
> http://askubuntu.com/questions/125342/how-can-i-install-python-2-6-on-12-04(the
> deadsnakes repositories, love the name).  So, if we wanted, we could
> move the modernizations over to 0.7 and fix 0.6.24 to work on older
> Pythons.
> 
> That seems like a cleaner and more rational break to me.  Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:06 AM, edso <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 28.04.2014 16:53, Michael Terry wrote:
>>> Well, two separate decisions: release 0.6.24 or not and whether we want
>> to go to 0.7.
>>>
>>> But I don't have a reason to wait on releasing 0.6.24.
>>>
>>> And as for 0.7, I'm fine with that too.  Just a number.  :)
>>>
>>> But this branch itself feels like not a very momentous change.  By which
>> I mean, end users shouldn't care about this at all.  Doesn't fix any big
>> bugs (except maybe the --cf-backend argument) and doesn't add any new
>> features.
>>>
>>
>> it's just the sheer amount of modified code that worries me a bit. as i
>> wrote in the other email
>>
>> also,
>> 1. old backend code e.g. released by somebody privately will not work
>> anymore when dropped into duplicity/backends
>> 2. true, officially switching to 2.6 might be another point, somebody
>> might want to remove the 2.6'isms from the 0.6 branch if they really need
>> duplicity on some oldold distro. supposing we also keep the 2.6 changes
>> only in 0.7 branch.
>>
>> ..ede
>>
>> --
>>
>> https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification/+merge/216764
>> You are subscribed to branch lp:duplicity.
>>
> 

-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification/+merge/216764
Your team duplicity-team is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~mterry/duplicity/backend-unification into lp:duplicity.