[webkit-dev] minimum python version to support

[Chris Jerdonek]

Mechanize (and ClientForm on which it depends) does work with Python 2.4:

http://wwwsearch.sourceforge.net/mechanize/

(See the section on compatibility.)


On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Adam Barth <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
> My understanding is that some of the libraries we use, like Mechanize,
> don't work in Python 2.4.  My complaint in Bug 36063 is that we're
> re-implementing Mechanize poorly.  I'd rather we just upgraded the
> machines that need to run-webkit-tests to a more modern version of
> Python.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdonek at webkit.org> wrote:
>> No one responded back with a summary of the Python 2.4 discussion, so
>> I'll attempt a summary of my own after reading--
>>
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35584
>>
>> (If you recall, we are trying to decide what Python code we write
>> needs to work with Python 2.4.)
>>
>> The Chromium project still uses Python 2.4 in a significant way.  Some
>> Chromium bots run new-run-webkit-tests using 2.4, and a number of
>> developers use 2.4 in their development environments.  Generally
>> speaking, people support upgrading, but no one is spearheading an
>> upgrade and there is no ETA.
>>
>> For the time being, because of the bots, it seems like
>> new-run-webkit-tests definitely needs to keep working with 2.4.  But
>> for the tools used more in the development environment (webkit-patch,
>> etc), it seems like people would be willing to find a way to make
>> things work with 2.5+.
>>
>> It would be pretty easy to get all of our Python code working with 2.4
>> (we had a patch for this a couple weeks ago), but going back wouldn't
>> let us use some of the nicer constructs.  And we would have to contend
>> with at least one bug in 2.4.
>>
>> (End of summary.)
>>
>> Plainly, the options seem to be--
>>
>> (1) All Python 2.5+
>> (2) All Python 2.4
>> (3) Some combination of (1) and (2) (e.g. new-run-webkit-tests 2.4,
>> everything else 2.5)
>>
>> However, (1) does not seem to be an option.  Personally, I'm starting
>> to lean more toward to (2).  One reason is that we are already
>> starting to see a case of re-implementing in Python 2.4 (for
>> new-run-webkit-tests) code that was already written in 2.5:
>>
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36063#c4
>>
>> I also think it would be helpful if we did not need to have this
>> discussion for each new script we decide to write in Python.  I would
>> be willing to update the patch from a couple weeks ago that adjusts
>> things for 2.4.
>>
>> --Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdonek at webkit.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Kilzer <ddkilzer at webkit.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, March 4, 2010 at 5:35:08 PM, William Siegrist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I have a Tiger machine handy, I tested this and was able to build python
>>>>> 2.5.5 from MacPorts on a PowerPC. It takes a while, but it worked. I did not try
>>>>> python 2.6.
>>>>
>>>> I've installed python 2.6.4 using MacPorts on my PowerBook G4 running Tiger 10.4.11, and it's worked find with webkit-patch the one or two times I tried it.
>>>
>>> That sounds great.  Thanks a lot, Dave and Bill.  So does it seem safe
>>> to say, then, that folks on 2.3 can upgrade if it ever becomes
>>> necessary to use one of the tools?
>>>
>>> As for Python 2.4, I haven't been following the discussion as closely
>>> since it seems to affect Chromium developers more.  Can someone
>>> summarize the state of the discussion there -- does it seem like there
>>> is a consensus?
>>>
>>> --Chris
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>>
>