Re: python3-port branch merged to default and then closed
Tim Jenness <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.tools.scons.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On May 25, 2016, at 22:26, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-05-23 at 16:39 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> After a bunch of work py2 is passing all tests on python3-port >> branch. >> So I've merged that to default and closed the python3-port branch. > > Thanks for all your work on this, it's great to have a single branch > that is the focus of all effort. > >> All further changes/pull requests for py2/3 should be done against >> default. > > I will try and get the "futurize -2" stuff going now. I think there are > no remnants of the earlier six based effort that are not consistent > with future. I think the six based effort was well worth it when it was > tried, but now we do not have to support 2.6 removing six and using > future is the right thing to do. > Russell — I’m taking a look again at python3 scons. Am I now meant to be looking at the default branch for scons on bitbucket? Is there work happening on a new branch anywhere? I’ve had a go at futurize -2 but there’s an issue in the boostrap.py importing that I need to look at (importing of rpm as a namespace). I’m just asking to ensure I’m looking at the right current state of python3. — Tim Jenness _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev