On 12/03/2012 08:18 AM, Marc J. Driftmeyer wrote:> One of the most conservative distributions is Debian. > > The python_defaults package has moved to 2.7.3 in Sid and 2.7.3~rc2-1 in > Wheezy (Debian 7.0 now on its 4th beta and soon to be release candidate > status). > > I personally run Sid/Unstable in order to get general release builds of > LLVM/Clang > 2.9, never mind 3.2. > > It seems reasonable to target 2.7.3 as the oldest python release.The gcc compile farm currently only has python 2.4 and 2.5. I know Duncan is using it quiet extensively, especially all dragonegg buildbots run on it. I very much agree we should ensure our python scripts are valid python 2.7 and as close as possible to python 3.x. However, as Daniel pointed out, there are still users of older python versions around. We could probably require them to upgrade, but I would like to avoid this, if we can support older python versions without too much trouble. Cheers Tobi
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:> The gcc compile farm currently only has python 2.4 and 2.5. I know Duncan is > using it quiet extensively, especially all dragonegg buildbots run on it. > > I very much agree we should ensure our python scripts are valid python 2.7 > and as close as possible to python 3.x. However, as Daniel pointed out, > there are still users of older python versions around. We could probably > require them to upgrade, but I would like to avoid this, if we > can support older python versions without too much trouble.Duncan, sorry for roping you into this thread, but it seems that your bots are basically the only concrete need that has been voiced for supporting End-of-life'd (2.4, 2.5) Python versions. Do you have any plans for bringing those bots up to 2.6 or 2.7? If it wouldn't take you a long time, I think it would be beneficial to update so that our Python code can be made Python2+Python3 compatible; Arch Linux and I believe Ubuntu 12.10 ship with Python3 as /usr/bin/python by default, so being able to coexist with both is important. -- Sean Silva
On 12/04/2012 12:28 AM, Sean Silva wrote:> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tobias Grosser<tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> The gcc compile farm currently only has python 2.4 and 2.5. I know Duncan is >> using it quiet extensively, especially all dragonegg buildbots run on it. >> >> I very much agree we should ensure our python scripts are valid python 2.7 >> and as close as possible to python 3.x. However, as Daniel pointed out, >> there are still users of older python versions around. We could probably >> require them to upgrade, but I would like to avoid this, if we >> can support older python versions without too much trouble. > > Duncan, sorry for roping you into this thread, but it seems that your > bots are basically the only concrete need that has been voiced for > supporting End-of-life'd (2.4, 2.5) Python versions. Do you have any > plans for bringing those bots up to 2.6 or 2.7? If it wouldn't take > you a long time, I think it would be beneficial to update so that our > Python code can be made Python2+Python3 compatible; Arch Linux and I > believe Ubuntu 12.10 ship with Python3 as /usr/bin/python by default, > so being able to coexist with both is important.Hi Sean, several people already asked what are the concrete benefits of breaking support for end-of-life python versions? It is not our job to force people to upgrade. In the absence of actual benefits on our side, not supporting older versions causes unnecessary overhead. In this case we know there is overhead for Duncan, but I am sure I will at some point log into an old system and would have to install a newer python to use LLVM. If there is no direct benefit for us, I would definitely like to avoid this additional overhead. My experience with cindex.py has been, that maintaining backward compatibility was never a big issue. The threading/process stuff seems the first issue that can not be worked around trivially. However, the necessary workaround for windows makes it apparently easy to support older python versions. Hence, I don't see a reason to stop support for older python versions until we find a case where supporting them is not trivial any more. This use case will then also help us to take an educated decision on what should the minimal supported python version be. Support for python 3 seems a good thing. What constructs in our code block the move to python 3? Cheers Tobi
Hi Sean, On 04/12/12 00:28, Sean Silva wrote:> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> The gcc compile farm currently only has python 2.4 and 2.5. I know Duncan is >> using it quiet extensively, especially all dragonegg buildbots run on it. >> >> I very much agree we should ensure our python scripts are valid python 2.7 >> and as close as possible to python 3.x. However, as Daniel pointed out, >> there are still users of older python versions around. We could probably >> require them to upgrade, but I would like to avoid this, if we >> can support older python versions without too much trouble. > > Duncan, sorry for roping you into this thread, but it seems that your > bots are basically the only concrete need that has been voiced for > supporting End-of-life'd (2.4, 2.5) Python versions. Do you have any > plans for bringing those bots up to 2.6 or 2.7?most of the bots are running 2.5.2, because that's the system python version (Debian lenny). I don't have any control over the O/S version, so I would have to install a more recent python version locally. Personally I think it is wise to have buildbots running on older systems, since I reckon that there are many people running oldish systems out there. Lenny came out in 2009, and was the latest stable Debian release until 6 months ago, so it's not even that old. If it wouldn't take> you a long time, I think it would be beneficial to update so that our > Python code can be made Python2+Python3 compatible; Arch Linux and I > believe Ubuntu 12.10 ship with Python3 as /usr/bin/python by default, > so being able to coexist with both is important.What is the reason for upgrading? Is there a problem with python 2.4/2.5 that can't be worked around? Ciao, Duncan.