From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:48:28 GMT Subject: Re: Python version auditing followup Message-ID: <7vy5grz1fn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <006101cddfab$2afb0cf0$80f126d0$@schmitz-digital.de> "Joachim Schmitz" writes: >> 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" 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 ;-) Yeah, duly noted, and appreciated.