[Piglit] [PATCH 0/5] Python 3 port, again

[Jose Fonseca]

On 23/07/15 20:38, Dylan Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:57:59PM +0100, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>>
>> Python3 will definitely bring challenges to us.
>>
>> It's no problem for our personal development systems, but there are
>> several systems which still only have python 2.x -- (systems we want to
>> run or build piglit.)
>>
>>
>> I wonder it would be possible to keep piglit using either Python 2 and 3
>> for an transitory period (e.g, 3 months), that would allows us to
>> gradualy migrate things, as opposed to close shop for several days.
>>
>> On the other hand, I know it's tricky to make code that runs both on 2
>> and 3.  And we might get exposed to weird bugs either way.  I know we'll
>> have to bite the bullet sooner or later.
>>
>>
>> So maybe the the Python 2 branch works -- I can get the existing systems
>> to build and run Python 2 branch.  Then slowly start building and using
>> Python 3 based master branch.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the record, IMHO, the decision of making Python 3 backwards
>> incompatible was a huge mistake.  If they introduced/deprecated the
>> new/old semantics incrementally they would get to world to migrate much
>> faster.  Instead they created this huge barrier, effectively keeping the
>> bulk of the world in Python 2 much longer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jose
>
> Sorry guys, I forgot about this..
>
> Anyway, For us, we're interested in python 3 for the new features it
> brings us, builtin xz support and builtin timeout support specifically.
>
> I'm willing to entertain whatever migration path we want, but ultimately
> we (Intel) want to be able to make use of python 3.3 features, so any
> plan that wouldn't allow that isn't really interesting to us.

I see.  If the new features is what interests you then a hybrid approach 
won't provide benefit to anybody.  Just complexity.

So instead of a slow and painful transition, we might as well do a quick 
and painful.

> If we can go to a hybrid approach for a time and make a transition to
> pure python 3 we're opened to that in place of maintaining two branches.
> Of course, the other people we'll need to to talk to are Red Hat, since
> they may have python 2.x requirements for some of their older releases.

August is a bad month, with lots of people on PTO etc.

What about merging Python 3, and forking Python 2, some fixed date in 
the middle of September?


Jose