aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Chu-Carroll <mchucarr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Python versions
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:01:04 GMT
Per Brian's reply, it turns out that we can maintain perfect backwards
compatibility for free, by using a library we already depend on.

   -Mark


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Alexius Ludeman <lex@lexinator.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> I would highly recommend trying to be compatible with python 2.6.  RHEL/OEL
> 6u3-6u5 are still on python 2.6...
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Bill Farner <wfarner@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Jake Farrell <jfarrell@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to keeping as current as possible and not introducing workarounds
> for
> > > older os variants. Python 2.7 is the default on Ubuntu 12.04 and OS X
> > which
> > > is what a majority of people will use for testing/development and our
> > > Vagrant images are built around this as well. AURORA-227 introduces a
> > check
> > > for the min python version, its in review right now and if we are going
> > to
> > > look at setting a default min version this would be a good time to do
> it
> > >
> > > -Jake
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Mark Chu-Carroll <
> > mchucarroll@apache.org<javascript:;>
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks:
> > > >
> > > > For one of the client changes I'm working on, there's a python
> version
> > > > compatibility issue.
> > > >
> > > > For Python 2.7 and 3.x, there's an "exec" function which I use for
> > > loading
> > > > hooks. In python 2.6, exec is a statement, an the function form
> doesn't
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > This is something that can be worked around, but the workaround is
> > ugly -
> > > > you need to introspect to see the python version, and then choose an
> > > > implementation based on the version.
> > > >
> > > > My inclination is to say that supporting 2.7 and 3.x is sufficient,
> and
> > > we
> > > > shouldn't be adding new workarounds for 2.6. But I don't want to make
> > > that
> > > > decision myself for everyone.
> > > >
> > > > Do we care about continuing to support Python 2.6 for the Aurora
> > client?
> > > >
> > > >      -Mark
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -=Bill
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message