RE: Python version auditing followup

["Joachim Schmitz" <jojo@schmitz-digital.de>]

> 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 ;-)