Re: Python version auditing followup

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2012, 18:28 UTC
Message-ID: <7va9t71cqa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <000d01cddf4c$8cbf2ca0$a63d85e0$@schmitz-digital.de>

"Joachim Schmitz" <jojo@schmitz-digital.de> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

>> > We have a working 2.4.2 for HP-NonStop and some major problems getting
>> > 2.7.3 to work.
>> 
>> I do not think a platform that stops at 2.4.2 instead of going to
>> higher 2.4.X series deserves to be called "long term maintained by
>> their vendors".  It sounds more like "attempted to supply 2.4.X and
>> abandoned the users once one port was done" to me.
>
> Well, not entirely wrong, but not all true at too.
> I guess I need to defend the vendor here: It is not really the
> Vendor (HP) that provided Python 2.4.2 or tries to provide 2.7.3,
> it is a volunteer and community effort. HP did sponsor the 2.4.2
> port though (by allowing an HP employee to do the port inn his
> regular working hours). It is not doing this any longer (since
> 2007). Since then it is a small group doing this on a purely
> voluntary basis in their spare time (one HP employee amongst them,
> me).  Same goes for the git port BTW.

For the purpose of "if we draw the line at 2.6, would it hurt many people who have been happily using the existing release of Git that was happy with 2.4", it is dubious HP-NonStop counts. It is not like the users on that platform have been happily using Python based Porcelain at the fringe of Git, and drawing the line at 2.6 will not give them any regression.

It does add more things that needs to be done to the volunteer developers for that platform and the organization that may want to support the platform (as they have to finish 2.6 port if we decide to draw the line there), but that is a secondary consideration.