Re: Python version auditing followup
- From
Joachim Schmitz <jojo@schmitz-digital.de>
- Date
- Dec 20, 2012, 21:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <kb001v$vps$1@ger.gmane.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vobho60fs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> esr@thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: > >> That was the first of three patches I have promised. In order to do >> the next one, which will be a development guidelines recommend >> compatibility back to some specific version X, I need a policy >> decision. How do we set X? >> >> I don't think X can be < 2.4, nor does it need to be - 2.4 came out >> in 2004 and eight years is plenty of deployment time. >> >> The later we set it, the more convenient for developers. But of >> course by setting it late we trade away some portability to >> older systems. >> >> In previous discussion of this issue I recommended X = 2.6. >> That is still my recommendation. Thoughts, comments, objections? > > I personally would think 2.6 is recent enough. Which platforms that > are long-term-maintained by their vendors still pin their Python at > 2.4.X? 2.4.6 was in 2008 that was source only, 2.4.4 was in late > 2006 that was the last 2.4 with binary release. > > Objections? Comments?
We have a working 2.4.2 for HP-NonStop and some major problems getting 2.7.3 to work.
Bye, Jojo