> From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 7:28 PM > To: Joachim Schmitz > Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Python version auditing followup > > "Joachim Schmitz" <jojo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html