From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Haggerty Subject: Re: [PATCH] Third try at documenting command integration requirements. Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: <50B4A8E1.7050801@alum.mit.edu> References: <20121126053557.E56434065F@snark.thyrsus.com> <7vzk24qgjx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20121126214134.GA1713@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: esr@thyrsus.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Nov 27 12:50:17 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TdJg4-0004Kf-SQ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:50:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751228Ab2K0Lt6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:49:58 -0500 Received: from ALUM-MAILSEC-SCANNER-7.MIT.EDU ([18.7.68.19]:48099 "EHLO alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750890Ab2K0Lt5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:49:57 -0500 X-AuditID: 12074413-b7f786d0000008bb-ad-50b4a8e4f7f5 Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (OUTGOING-ALUM.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.33]) by alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 95.45.02235.4E8A4B05; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:49:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.101.152] (ssh.berlin.jpk.com [212.222.128.135]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as mhagger@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id qARBnsfO009134 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:49:55 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 In-Reply-To: <20121126214134.GA1713@thyrsus.com> X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqPtkxZYAgyOH5C2ubvGx6LrSzWTR 0HuF2YHZ4+IlZY9lXztZPD5vkgtgjuK2SUosKQvOTM/Tt0vgzvj+8CNLwQqeitmn1jI2MF7g 7GLk5JAQMJG4uuoHK4QtJnHh3no2EFtI4DKjxMOpqV2MXED2cSaJ+3+msIAkeAW0Jd61/2AG sVkEVCWuTFsIZrMJ6Eos6mlmArFFBQIkFi85xw5RLyhxcuYToF4ODhEBYYljfWogYWYBa4kV rw+DlQsL+EvsmXqPEWJXO6PEzI/HwY7gFDCQWPd1PQtEg47Eu74HzBC2vMT2t3OYJzAKzEKy YhaSsllIyhYwMq9ilEvMKc3VzU3MzClOTdYtTk7My0st0jXXy80s0UtNKd3ECAlc4R2Mu07K HWIU4GBU4uE9sGRzgBBrYllxZe4hRkkOJiVR3qdLtgQI8SXlp1RmJBZnxBeV5qQWH2KU4GBW EuF9shQox5uSWFmVWpQPk5LmYFES51Vbou4nJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk5Xh4FCS4D21DKhRsCg1 PbUiLTOnBCHNxMEJMpxLSqQ4NS8ltSixtCQjHhSp8cXAWAVJ8QDtPQ3SzltckJgLFIVoPcWo y7FhffsTRiGWvPy8VClx3qMgRQIgRRmleXArYGnqFaM40MfCvE9AqniAKQ5u0iugJUxAS5Kv bwRZUpKIkJJqYFR237RzbtOXiULOiytOPNZV+KJxsKvr9l1OZ90gXm8f8Z+x/pqsV8q7lPju efxZuH/V3X877jUturu75emrjwfsa9ecfbH5ZL3wl5MibvXPf2p9MJKeZmlzSfK2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 11/26/2012 10:41 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > The next things on my git to-do list are > [...] > 2. Submit a doc patch containing guidelines that (a) Python scripts should > check for their floor version and error out gracefully if they won't > run with the host's interpreter, and (b) Python scripts sbould be > 2.6-compatible. OK, now let's discuss *which* minimum Python version that git should support in the hypothetical new world... Data point: Mercurial supports Python 2.4 - 2.7 with the following explanation [1]: We will continue to support Python 2.4 as long as it doesn't present a significant barrier to development. Given that Python 2.5 and later don't contain any features that we're dying to use, that may be a long time off. [...] We also will continue to support Python 2.x as long as there is a significant installed base in the form of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Ubuntu LTS users. RHEL 5, which uses Python 2.4, will reach the end of the "production 2" portion of its lifecycle in Q1 2014 and the end of its regular lifecycle in 2017. It would be a shame to leave RHEL 5 users behind if Python is used to implement important git functionality. Python 2.4 is missing some of Python's shiny new features, but still quite OK. What features would you miss the most if we were to target Python 2.4 instead of 2.6? Michael [1] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/SupportedPythonVersions -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/