Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > Maybe I am oversimplifying. But what about using 2.6+ (<3.0) and > ensure that all code is compatible with 3. And still have 3 in > parallel for those who want it. So we target 2.6+ , but have 3.0 there > to ensure everything would work with it, and for early adopters/devs > It is an oversimplification but how much is something we need experience in order to discover. 2.6 != 3.x even though they are close. There will be a 2.7 and a 3.1 and some of those problems should be addressed in those two releases. Until we actually build experience trying to do this, though, we don't know to what extent our work on making things work on 2.6 will carry over to 3.x. Note, the port we've just done to 2.6 is not all that's needed. python-2.6 tries to have a 2.x mode and a 3.x mode (some changes are too deep to truly have this but it tries). We'll have to start porting code to 2.6 with 3.x features turned on at some point. Also note, this is a valid plan for Fedora but it doesn't address mpdehaan's issue with supporting python <= 2.5 (which I don't think is solvable in any elegant manner.) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
