On Nov 5, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On 11/6/05, Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@divmod.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 17:00:14 +1100, Christopher Armstrong <radeex@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/11/05, Jonathan Lange <jml@mumak.net> wrote:
Should we drop Python 2.2 support in Subversion head for Twisted 2.2?
I consider this issue resolved, given the lack of response for people wanting 2.2 support. The buildslave for 2.2 should be taken down and Twisted trunk should be considered fair for 2.3-only features.
Lack of interest in a change doesn't dictate that the change be made. I didn't hear anyone come out against the change _or_ for it.
If it will help, I'll throw in against dropping 2.2 support. Neither 2.3 nor 2.4 introduce any compelling new features.
You are confused. At least two people were *for* dropping 2.2 support in this thread, and nobody was against it. I'm pretty sure several others have been for dropping it on IRC, as well.
I have seen people several times commit code that requires 2.3, realize that the buildbot failed, and replace the code with a more complicated version (didn't you do this recently yourself, Jp?). I personally find it harder and harder to test 2.2, as finding an installation of 2.2 is getting rarer these days. To unshamedly list features from the "What's new in Python 2.3" article:
I can say that I do not particularly like having to support 2.2. =) RedHat EL3 (which is still supported by RedHat) still has python 2.2 though by default. I don't know what other "still supported" distributions might have it. When I forced "at least 2.3" on my PyAIM/PyICQ transport users, I got a fair number of complaints and a couple of "well then I can't use your transport". I'm not entirely sure why one can't just install python 2.3 or higher if that's a requirement, but hey. =) Anyway, I'd almost be happier if Twisted didn't support 2.2 anymore simply because I could use that as a catalist for dropping support for it on my end as well. I actually have to implement my own bool class to get real booleans in 2.2.. and that file is there only for 2.2. =/ I can't put any real facts behind this, but it "seems" like unicode support isn't as good in 2.2 either. That might just be my imagination though. =D Daniel