From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Python version auditing followup Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:48:28 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy5grz1fn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20121220143411.BEA0744105@snark.thyrsus.com> <7vobho60fs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vzk182yka.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <000d01cddf4c$8cbf2ca0$a63d85e0$@schmitz-digital.de> <7va9t71cqa.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <006101cddfab$2afb0cf0$80f126d0$@schmitz-digital.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: To: "Joachim Schmitz" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 21 19:48:57 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 1Tm7eS-0003lj-NJ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:48:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751827Ab2LUSsi (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:48:38 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:60940 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293Ab2LUSsg (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:48:36 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900F9AC86; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:48:31 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=dPrxOdIdVheWimRV3xbcre3Z/tc=; b=VEizF+ IxA/os/KcaDF1LQWl0SM8J2T/uHv5lf2nRUs4uO+ojS6IgiafpjrVLNofEjKwHw8 07OyXf0zSZbveC+JJSziKlkHwqhlNFmQzCkYWhHs0/V12PnD6X0/jpGxKl3Hm+Le ngB7Z4eazXPq7hAwQ4Zz7RBPKAm7EB6xBKTJA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=iT29GREWK8oP8dsoTmJnfA7v9uHxlPnO wnHYMdQetatOBeabldEfhFCBWqXZYU5ECSSoRwizAuGvGlxFJ9PSjAy6f96zFfPP 6CMBm9Dl/PFPhGLCShpqu0Mr3e9hA17x101M7TJEDSLX2zNYsv5awpi34uSeZzSk kBmqN1II++s= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA62AC85; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [98.234.214.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 84D39AC83; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:48:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <006101cddfab$2afb0cf0$80f126d0$@schmitz-digital.de> (Joachim Schmitz's message of "Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:44:10 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0385A634-4B9F-11E2-AF0E-F0CE2E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Joachim Schmitz" writes: >> 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" 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 ;-) Yeah, duly noted, and appreciated.