Re: Python version auditing followup

"Joachim Schmitz" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gitster@pobox.com]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 7:28 PM
To: Joachim Schmitz
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Python version auditing followup

"Joachim Schmitz" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

quoted

We have a working 2.4.2 for HP-NonStop and some major problems getting
2.7.3 to work.

I do not think a platform that stops at 2.4.2 instead of going to
higher 2.4.X series deserves to be called "long term maintained by
their vendors".  It sounds more like "attempted to supply 2.4.X and
abandoned the users once one port was done" to me.

Well, not entirely wrong, but not all true at too.
I guess I need to defend the vendor here: It is not really the
Vendor (HP) that provided Python 2.4.2 or tries to provide 2.7.3,
it is a volunteer and community effort. HP did sponsor the 2.4.2
port though (by allowing an HP employee to do the port inn his
regular working hours). It is not doing this any longer (since
2007). Since then it is a small group doing this on a purely
voluntary basis in their spare time (one HP employee amongst them,
me).  Same goes for the git port BTW.

For the purpose of "if we draw the line at 2.6, would it hurt many
people who have been happily using the existing release of Git that
was happy with 2.4", it is dubious HP-NonStop counts.  It is not
like the users on that platform have been happily using Python based
Porcelain at the fringe of Git, and drawing the line at 2.6 will not
give them any regression.

You asked for opions and obhections, you got mine ;-)

Yeah, duly noted, and appreciated.