[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: switching to Python 3.x
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: switching to Python 3.x |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Jan 2020 16:50:27 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.3 |
Am Montag, den 06.01.2020, 19:44 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> Am Montag, den 06.01.2020, 19:32 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > Jonas Hahnfeld <
> > address@hidden
> >
> > > writes:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 19.12.2019, 20:13 +0100 schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld:
> > > > Hello friends of Python 3!
> > > >
> > > > to make the initial proposal short: With today's patches, I think
> > > > 'master' would be ready to switch over to Python 3.x.
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > Let me know what you think!
> > >
> > > So far, I've only received a single (positive) response off-list and a
> > > bit of feedback on the posted patches. What do others think?
> > > To make this explicit: The proposal is to drop support for Python 2
> > > (now EOL), requiring everyone wishing to build LilyPond 'master' to
> > > have an appropriate version of Python 3 available. This should be
> > > sufficiently easy (see above), but I'd like to have consensus on this.
> >
> > When we switch over GUB, we also need to switch over the 2.20 branch.
> > It's not just master that is affected.
>
> That will be hard to impossible because it requires quite some changes
> that landed in master over the past months. I also don't think it's a
> good idea to rush the switch to Python 3 into 2.20 (I'd agree with
> others that we should release as soon as possible rather than delaying
> further and further). Plus there will most certainly be problems that I
> just haven't run into for now.
>
> However I don't see a large problem with switching GUB: For one we
> would only need to switch the dependency in the spec when releasing
> 2.21 which hopefully means that 2.20 is done. If building master with
> GUB is important, we can instead create a branch from the current
> commit to continue releasing 2.20 with the current set of dependencies.
Does this make sense, would this be acceptable? If not, is there a
different time frame where such change can go in before releasing the
first of 2.21?
Ideally it would be good to have the conversion to Python 3 happening
rather sooner than later because there a few deprecation warnings that
I would like to follow up on...
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/01/06
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, David Kastrup, 2020/01/06
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/01/06
- Re: switching to Python 3.x,
Jonas Hahnfeld <=
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, David Kastrup, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, David Kastrup, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, David Kastrup, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2020/01/26
- Re: switching to Python 3.x, David Kastrup, 2020/01/26