Re: [Gramps-devel] ast only in python 2.6

[Gerald B. <ger...@gm...>]

That't interesting.  One of the reasons I moved to Linux years ago was
the Windows upgrade mill.  The cost of the software and often new
hardware requirements.  I was really happy to get of that treadmill,
that's for sure.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Benny Malengier
<ben...@gm...> wrote:
> As a tangent to this, see:
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Moratorium-for-Python-3-836421.html
>
> So Guido proposes python should remain grammer/syntax stable for a few years.
>
> I do perceive the upgrade mill in linux in general as the largest
> thing driving people who came to linux away again. At least that is
> what I note talking to people who moved to apple/freebsd/back to
> windows.
> As a community it is something to be very aware of, although I
> understand not all developers here are linux coders and might hence
> cheer for such moves :-D
>
> Benny
>
> 2009/10/23 Benny Malengier <ben...@gm...>:
>> 2009/10/23 Brian Matherly <br...@gr...>:
>>> Benny,
>>>
>>>> >> hmm -- unfortunate to block 2.6.
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree. If we are going to go back on the 2.6
>>>> requirement, we need to finalize that decision ASAP.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> My point is only that I fail to see why python2.5 is
>>>> dropped if the
>>>> functionality can be added in such a way that things work
>>>> on python2.5
>>>> also.
>>>> In this case of ast, importing it, and on fail doing a
>>>> fallback to
>>>> eval(...) works just fine.
>>> <snip>
>>>> Well, to recap my view, if somebody actually starts to do
>>>> the work to
>>>> have gramps 3.2 working in python 3.0 and python 2.6, then
>>>> I agree
>>>> with the minimum 2.6 requirement, it is the only way to do
>>>> this
>>>> migration. Otherwise, I don't see the point as long as
>>>> nobody comes
>>>> with a great feature that needs 2.6.
>>>
>>> You make some good points. If we are going to change our mind, then we should set an official policy for Gramps3.2 and update the roadmap here:
>>> http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=3.2_Roadmap#Dependency_upgrades
>>>
>>> By the way, it isn't practical to write Python code that runs under both 2.6 and 3.0:
>>> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/whatsnew/3.0.html#porting-to-python-3-0
>>
>> Ok, I failed to understand that the 2to3 would still change code even
>> if -3 does not give warnings anymore.
>> Looking at http://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Romjerome#test_tab_python_3.0,
>> I think it is possible to remove all -3 warnings while still
>> supporting python 2.5. Most are division things, which python 2.5 can
>> import from __future__. The urllib can be done with a fallback as done
>> when both 2.4 and 2.5 were supported.
>>
>> I would advocate we for now try to maintain 2.5 compatibility and
>> remove the -3 warnings in python 2.6. If you all can agree with that I
>> would change the roadmap page about dependency to:
>>
>> keep python 2.5 compatibility, while preparing for python 3.x.
>> Explanation: At the moment there are no features of the 2.6/7 version
>> GRAMPS needs that require python 2.5 support to be dropped. Version
>> 3.2 will however be the last GRAMPS version on python 2.x, with the
>> next version of GRAMPS (3.3) being python 3.x only. For that reason,
>> the move to python 3.0 needs to be prepared. For this we need the
>> support that python 2.6 offers. That is, people should start to run
>> GRAMPS with:
>>    python -3 gramps.py
>> which will print out depreciation warnings for all syntax that is not
>> compatible with Python 3.0. The goal is then to clean up all Python
>> 3.0 depreciation warnings using the new functionality that python 2.6
>> offers for this, while still providing fallback for python2.5 (using
>> eg __future__ module).
>> Should somebody come forward with an important improvement that
>> requires python2.6, or if removing the warnings of python -3 is
>> impossible with backward python2.5 compatibility present, keeping
>> python2.5 compatibility can be dropped after talking it through on the
>> devel list. In other words, support for python2.5 should not be
>> dropped without giving it a try first.
>> Developers: All
>>
>> First step for version 3.3 would then be removing all python 2.5
>> fallback code (perhaps we should indicate it with '### PYTHON 2.5
>> FALLBACK ###' for easy retrieval), and then running 2to3 on the 3.2
>> code, and make that trunk.
>>
>> Benny
>>
>>> The best you can do is write code that is easily converted using the 2to3 script:
>>> http://docs.python.org/dev/3.0/library/2to3.html#to3-reference
>>>
>>> ~Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
>>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
>>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
>>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gramps-devel mailing list
>>> Gra...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
>>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay
> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-devel mailing list
> Gra...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
>



-- 
Gerald Britton