You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Tres Seaver, repoz...@lists.repoze.org, Michael Merickel
> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver <tse...@palladion.com> wrote:
> Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
How important is 3.2 compatibility?
Wichert.
Tres Seaver
unread,
Nov 5, 2014, 11:55:43 AM11/5/14
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Wichert Akkerman, repoz...@lists.repoze.org, Michael Merickel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2014 10:44 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver <tse...@palladion.com>
>> wrote: Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
>
> How important is 3.2 compatibility?
We don't ordinarily drop a supported Python version a non-major release.
As a dependency for pyramid, if translationstring drops 3.2
compatiblity, we would need to pin it for "release" branches to versions
which preserved it. Note that the classifiers for translationstring 1.2
still claim support back to 2.4:
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Tres Seaver, repoz...@lists.repoze.org
> On 05 Nov 2014, at 17:55, Tres Seaver <tse...@palladion.com> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/05/2014 10:44 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Nov 2014, at 15:57, Tres Seaver <tse...@palladion.com>
>>> wrote: Unicode literals are a no-no for 3.2-compatibility:
>>
>> How important is 3.2 compatibility?
>
> We don't ordinarily drop a supported Python version a non-major release.
So we can consider dropping 3.2 for Pyramid 1.6? Dropping that would make straddling easier, which sounds worth it to me.
> As a dependency for pyramid, if translationstring drops 3.2
> compatiblity, we would need to pin it for "release" branches to versions
> which preserved it. Note that the classifiers for translationstring 1.2
> still claim support back to 2.4:
>
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/translationstring/1.2 >
> although testing versions < 2.6 with tox is no longer feasible.
I’ve updated that for the 1.3 release. I’ve also setup travis to automatically run tests on Python 2.6-2.7 and 3.2-3.4. I don’t know if anyone uses the tox configuration, so I’ve left that in place.
Wichert.
Malthe Borch
unread,
Nov 5, 2014, 4:29:06 PM11/5/14
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Wichert Akkerman, Tres Seaver, repoz...@lists.repoze.org
+1
Python 3.2 is not likely to be relevant going forward because conservative users are anyway still on 2.x.