Re: pyblosxom future (1.3/2.0)

Doug Ransom wrote:
>>>I think this would also be a good time to switch to python 2.4 and allow
>>>the code to use any newer features.
>>We've talked about moving to python 2.3, but I think we agreed that we
>>don't want to get 2.4-specific. I don't see any reason to prefer 2.4
>>over 2.3 that overrides backwards compatibility.
> Well, the main reason in my opinion to move to 2.4 is so that the code 
> evolves in the best way possible, rather than being second-grade to 
> support legacy versions of python.  I don't think many people running 
> pyblosxom are going to grumbly about upgrading to python 2.4.

Uh, I am.  It's a pain for me to upgrade the version of Python on my 
server.  And going from 2.3 to 2.4 specifically makes my life hard, due 
to the fact that they changed compilers for the Win32 build, and I've 
only got the old compiler working.

When you add that to the message to pyblosxom-users from today saying:
 > Can I make pyblosxom working with Python 2.1.3? The server is
 > Debian/stable and I do not think, that admin will upgrade just because
 > of this.
I think we have a compelling case for not bumping the requirements to 2.4.

So, not that we're voting, but if we were, I would have to go with:
-1 for anything past 2.2

(Hey, Will, apparently 2.2 is available on Debian Stable, and the two 
versions can run concurrently.  Perhaps you should ask Matej if he can 
run "python2.2", from the command line, or if not, if his administrator 
would run "apt-get install python2.2".  Either of those should be able 
to fix his problem.)

Later,
Blake.



-------------------------------------------------------
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