Re: Python version auditing followup

>> From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 7:28 PM
>> To: Joachim Schmitz
>> Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: Python version auditing followup
>> 
>> "Joachim Schmitz" <jojo@schmitz-digital.de> writes:
>> 
>> >> > 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.
>
> You asked for opions and obhections, you got mine ;-)