Re: python version

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> Is there any compelling reason not to just jump to 2.3?  2.3.0 was 
> released on 7/29/2003, so it's been around for quite some time.

I heard two comments in regards to upping our Python requirement to 2.2:

%<-------------------------
Posted by Jason McBrayer at Tue Feb 22 08:55:30 2005
I'm excited about the idea of using pyblosxom on something other than CGI. 
Specifically, I'd like to use it on fastcgi.  I had toyed with the idea of 
doing a fastcgi handler for it myself, but never got around to it.

As for the python 2.2 requirement:  I had a look at a couple of more 
conservative linux distributions to see what they're bundling.  RH 
Enterprise Linux seems to be on 2.2.3, which is fine.  Debian stable, 
however is on 2.1.3.  I don't know how many people that would affect.


Posted by Cleopus at Wed Feb 23 01:38:30 2005
Debian stable has python 2.2.1, it's just not the default python (you can 
have 2.1 and 2.2 installed concurrently).

Just go with python2.2+. It's been out for ages, and it's not like it's 
hard to build for people with stone age installs.
%<-------------------------

But that's all the data I have.

I think I want to be less aggressive.  I think instead of asking whether 
there is a reason for not jumping to 2.3, it's better to ask if there's a 
reason for jumping to 2.3.  While it's been out since 2003, that's not 
that long ago.  SourceForge only recently upgraded from 1.5.2, for 
example.  So if I had my druthers, I'd leave the requirement at 2.2 unless 
we have a pressing need to jump to 2.3.

Anyone else want to chime in on this?

/will


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click