Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-next RFC 0/4] tools: Python 3 compatibility

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 02:17:31PM +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 01:57:55PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 01:53:01PM +0000, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > On 3/6/19 1:49 PM, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 3/5/19 4:42 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > >> This series makes tools build with Python 3.
> > > >>
> > > >> Compile test only with 2.7 and 3.5 thus far, hence the RFC. This 
> > > >> should be able
> > > >> to give people some idea what sort of work is involved.
> > > >>
> > > >> You will also need Andrew's "tools/xen-foreign: Update python scripts 
> > > >> to be
> > > >> Py3 compatible".
> > > > 
> > > > Tossing this out there: Given that python2 is (theoretically) EOL in
> > > > less than a year, is it worth maintaining compatibility with python2, or
> > > > would it be better to just go whole-hog into python3?
> > > 
> > > I mean -- looking at some of the discussions about how differently
> > > certain kinds of things are interpreted between python2 and python3, it
> > > seems a bit mad to try to write code that works in both: we're just
> > > asking for trouble.
> > 
> > I think Python is not very consistent even within a major version. New
> > syntax and constructs get added to point releases. Some of the
> > discussions re code isn't about the differences between 2 and 3.  There
> > is at least one about 2.4 vs 2.7.
> 
> I think it's because they backport syntax changes from 3.X to 2.6 and
> 2.7. Also all the _future_X imports. All of that makes it easier to have
> scripts compatible with both 2.7 and 3.X.
> 
> > I am all for moving away from 2.4.
> 
> Moving to a min of 2.6 would be nice. CentOS 6 comes it.

My next version will have a patch to do that. Any objection?

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel