Re: python3-port branch merged to default and then closed

Tim,

Yes work is now on default.

python3-port branch is now closed.

-Bill

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Tim Jenness <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > 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
>

_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev