duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[Kenneth Loafman <kenneth@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Aaron,

Great find!  Looks like it's just what we need.

...Thanks,
...Ken


On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Aaron <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Ken,
>
> On 18/12/17 13:03, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> No, I agree.  I was trying to say that we should either
>>     1) have 0.8 in py2 and py3 branches, e.g. 0.8-py2, 0.8-py3
>>     2) use 2to3 in single 0.8 branch to produce py3 at install time.
>> I'm guessing here, but the most stable would be two branches.  I don't
>> have enough experience with 2to3 to know if it's a viable use case.  I may
>> be way off base.
>>
>>
> My plan was to use the http://python-future.org/ approach.
>
> The futurize tool spits out code looks and feels like Python 3, but runs
> on Python 2.7 with imports that make those Python 2 functions act like
> their Python 3 equivalents. I think we will find it much easier to maintain
> just the one branch.
>
> Then in 0.9 we can just drop the compatibility imports.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Aaron
>