Re: [PATCH] Third try at documenting command integration requirements.

"Eric S. Raymond" [off-list ref] writes:

I agree that 2.4 is still quite OK.  I'm a little concerned that dropping that
far back might store up some transition problems for the day we decide to
make the jump to Python 3.

On the other hand, I think gating features on RHEL5 might be
excessively cautious.  According to [1], RHEL will red-zone within 30
days if it hasn't done so already ([1] says "Q4").  And RHEL6 (with
Python 2.6) has been shipping for two years.

I won't worry about Python 3 yet; in what timeframe did Python's
i18n/unicode support become usable?  In 2.4, or 2.6?

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

I won't worry about Python 3 yet; in what timeframe did Python's
i18n/unicode support become usable?  In 2.4, or 2.6?

Er, it depends on what you consider "usable".

Unicode integration turned out to have a lot messier edge cases than
anyone understood going in.  First-cut support was in 1.6, but I'd say
it still has some pretty sharp edges *today*.  Which is why 3.0 has
gone all-Unicode-all-the-time.  The problems mostly come from having
two different notions of "string" that don't really mix well.

Me, I still avoid the hell out of Unicode in Python.  And occasionally
fund myself cursing a library maintainer who didn't.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>