[webkit-dev] minimum python version to support

[Adam Barth]

Awesome!

/me goes and comments on the bug.

Adam


On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdonek at webkit.org> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>