[Scons-dev] Formal proposal

[Gary Oberbrunner]

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:43 AM, William Deegan
<bill at baddogconsulting.com>wrote:


> All,

>

> On Feb 9, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk> wrote:

>

> > On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 11:41 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:

> >> I propose that a 2.3.0 release is made forthwith (*) and that the floor

> >> version of Python is then raised to 2.6. With appropriate notification

> >> on the website front page.

> >

> > Of course if we made the floor version 2.7, then life gets a whole lot

> > easier since 2.7 is getting stuff backported in.

>

>

> Any reason not to skip 2.6?

>


I have a lot of 2.6 at work, but those machines would probably also be fine
staying with SCons 2.2.  This is probably the same situation for many (?)



>

> I don't agree that it is essential to goto 3.x in the short term.

> I don't think the community has really said that it's essential in the

> short term either from the previous email thread.

>


We are avoiding 3.x at work for at least another year.  Too much legacy
code would need porting, for basically zero gain.  Our 2.x world works
perfectly fine.  But that's just me.  Bill, could you summarize the results
of the 2.x/3.x poll?



>

> In my book (not speaking for SCons as a whole), it's a nice to have which

> will help some (of the very few) for whom installing a non 3.x python would

> be a difficulty.

>

> I do think it's a good idea to get rid of a lot of the old python

> compatibility logic.

> Getting to 2.7 is a nice step towards moving SCons forward with a goal of

> 3.x in the mid to longer term (IHMO)..

>


Agreed.  I guess it's time.  And I also am fine with pushing out a 2.3
release.  I've been running from the default branch for a while now, and we
do have a few nice items for a release.  Note that although we've claimed a
floor of python 2.4 for a while, python 2.3 and older probably mostly
worked prior to this version, SCons 2.3 removes a bunch of old
compatibility code so it probably will *really* require 2.4.  Not a
problem, just pointing it out.

-- 
Gary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20130209/9e85afff/attachment.htm>