Re: [FE-discuss] Last patch breaks Py 2.3 compatibility

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

Oh, are we talking about Python 3 porting too?  Huh, I haven't been keeping
track.  Another guy also worked on Python 3 porting, as a prerequisite for
porting SQLObject.  His work is here:
https://bitbucket.org/fetchinson/formencode-py3k/overview -- I just read the
changes, but it looked fairly complete to me.


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Graham Higgins <gj...@be...> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for slight hiatus in responding, email client problems here (sigh)
>
>
> On 7 Jul 2011, at 11:05, Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
>
>  Am 07.07.2011 00:04 schrieb Ian Bicking:
>>
>>> I ended up reverting that change because it also broke tests, and once I
>>> looked at it I didn't understand the purpose anyway.  Not that I mind
>>> dropping 2.3 support ;)
>>>
>>
>> Since the 2to3 patch by Graham Higgins also requires Py 2.4, dropping
>> 2.3 support would be a step forward I think.
>>
>
> For completeness, I'd have preferred to have 2.3 coverage but ...
>
> The omission of 2.3 was simply (but significantly) because I couldn't get
> the official tarball to compile on ubuntu natty - which otherwise provides
> distro package support for 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 and 3.2. There's a separate,
> individually-maintained "deadsnakes" ppa which provides a suitable 2.4
> package (bless their little cotton socks) but for 2.3 one is left with the
> "./configure && make" option - which blows out on both my laptop and the
> server. Obviously, a CentOS 4 VM would likely do the trick but even at that
> the relentless march of time means that supporting 2.3 is edging towards
> becoming disproportionately expensive in maintenance terms.
>
>
>  If we drop it, I am willing to go through the code and simplify it based
>> on Py 2.4 (use decorators etc.)
>>
>
> There's a current GSOC project aimed at porting webob to Python 3. The
> project kicked off with a test sprint aimed at achieving 100% test coverage,
> considered to be a highly desirable precondition for a robust port and also
> no bad thing in itself. I suspect formencode would similarly benefit from
> extended test coverage. It took 'em three days, mind.
>
>
>  But I suggest creating a final 1.2.5 release with Py 2.3 support before
>> doing this and then having a 1.3 which requires Py 2.4 after the
>> overhaul, maybe already with Graham's patch.
>>
>
> Makes a lot of sense to me, fwiw. My perspective here is enlightened
> self-interest (as a formencode user) and a respect for formencode's
> extensive existing i18n .po coverage, an aspect whose importance is
> sometimes severely under-appreciated by native English speaking developers
> (though I note this is definitely not true of Ian). And I've seen a few
> "formencode is dead, it isn't being supported" misperceptions being bruited
> about on IRC.
>
> I'd certainly be prepared to set up another CI job to track and support a
> development repository if that's perceived as a useful contribution. I'll
> also pitch in with the coding where I can (I'm a cognitive psychologist by
> trade, not a pro coder).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham Higgins
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk4VqmQACgkQOsmLt1**NhivwrJQCgtGdOuHlx/**NjWiTURq1Yf8qZA
> 58AAnj7skEfOrLICnvVc5ZZCr+p/**XTKoiQCVAgUBThWqZFnrWVZ7aXD1AQ**LWlgQA
> yTx+**z1bFpYzfxkMTQwwH5LDhbQr7O7ZSaP**3J4MvDejnNqYQ7VvTKvM/+W9gSGT9G
> EqrF+3vT459Go3blYyI+**Q2QpBQl8CAOsZvVPa3ufuPUpGpwuAt**k8iFTxEYMusqmT
> RHJYxP8wdh8XTEe523L0px0uzOFRhQ**Fc7N8HFTft78Y=
> =i4gu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>