Can ZTK 1.0 support Python 2.7?
Hi. We have Python 2.7 final now and some work has begun on making ZTK packages compatible with it. Currently we still see various test failures in the zopeapp set though and nobody who steps up to fix them. Apart from that, we have made a promise to support Python 2.4 up to 2.6 for the ZTK 1.0 release. The ZODB 3.10 releases do no longer support Python 2.4 but require 2.5. The ZODB 3.9.x releases are in maintenance mode for a while and currently don't support Python 2.7. I doubt that we can get official 2.7 support for the 3.9.x release line. Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition. What do others think about this? Hanno P.S. We talked about a rough timeline for a ZTK 1.0 release in the release team. We are aiming to get a beta out in early August (once we are all back from vacation). Test failures on any of the supported platforms are blocking such a release. This includes any failures we get on Windows. Hopefully more community members will step up and help fix those.
On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
What do others think about this?
Based on what you wrote, I think this is the right solution. Python 2.4 is clearly important to the Zope 2 / Plone world. Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Stephan Richter <srichter@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 13, 2010, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
What do others think about this?
Based on what you wrote, I think this is the right solution. Python 2.4 is clearly important to the Zope 2 / Plone world.
Actually both Zope2 and Plone 4 (as a potential user of the ZTK) are requiring Python 2.6 and don't even support Python 2.5 anymore. It's BlueBream and direct ZTK consumers that asked for the Python 2.4 support ;-) Anyways we decided to keep Python 2.4 for a ZTK release and codified that at http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/python-versions.html Hanno
Am 13.07.2010, 14:12 Uhr, schrieb Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu>:
What do others think about this?
Hanno, what's the time frame for ZTK 1.0? From your previous mail there were three packages with test failures on 2.7. But I thought these were fixed? """ I fixed all of those and released new versions. bin/test-ztk should now pass under Python 2.7. """ Have I missed a mail with more failures? I would have thought getting those tests to pass for a release is a reasonable aim. Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting & Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Charlie Clark <charlie.clark@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
what's the time frame for ZTK 1.0?
I put that info into the "post scriptum" of my mail.
Have I missed a mail with more failures? I would have thought getting those tests to pass for a release is a reasonable aim.
You have. It's only "bin/test-ztk" that passes. bin/test-zopeapp still has a number of failures. Hanno
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Charlie Clark <charlie.clark@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
what's the time frame for ZTK 1.0?
I put that info into the "post scriptum" of my mail.
Have I missed a mail with more failures? I would have thought getting those tests to pass for a release is a reasonable aim.
You have. It's only "bin/test-ztk" that passes. bin/test-zopeapp still has a number of failures.
There is also the zope.testing failure where a doctest tries to drive the pdb module: 2.7 added a new intermediate (private) method to the call stack in unittest's 'assertEqual', which causes that test to fail. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkw8cboACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4SHACfUniSb5VOU8A0eWww1uyr+Nav QUsAoMt8Dbz+DT4ZTcv1SA1gB6Oep+Us =JyFb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01:35AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Charlie Clark <charlie.clark@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
what's the time frame for ZTK 1.0?
I put that info into the "post scriptum" of my mail.
Have I missed a mail with more failures? I would have thought getting those tests to pass for a release is a reasonable aim.
You have. It's only "bin/test-ztk" that passes. bin/test-zopeapp still has a number of failures.
There is also the zope.testing failure where a doctest tries to drive the pdb module: 2.7 added a new intermediate (private) method to the call stack in unittest's 'assertEqual', which causes that test to fail.
That shouldn't be too difficult to fix; zope.testing already uses quite a few regexp-based renormalizers to hide traceback elements that differ in different Python versions. (Debugging those is a pain, though.) Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3 consulting and development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:01:35AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Charlie Clark <charlie.clark@clark-consulting.eu> wrote:
what's the time frame for ZTK 1.0? I put that info into the "post scriptum" of my mail.
Have I missed a mail with more failures? I would have thought getting those tests to pass for a release is a reasonable aim. You have. It's only "bin/test-ztk" that passes. bin/test-zopeapp still has a number of failures. There is also the zope.testing failure where a doctest tries to drive the pdb module: 2.7 added a new intermediate (private) method to the call stack in unittest's 'assertEqual', which causes that test to fail.
That shouldn't be too difficult to fix; zope.testing already uses quite a few regexp-based renormalizers to hide traceback elements that differ in different Python versions.
(Debugging those is a pain, though.)
Can't be renormalized, as the pdb session requires sending an extra 'u' to get to the expected stack frame (it's a dumb test, FWIW). Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkw854MACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4nSACg0y6g7ZuAJaw7H3nFAFqBWAws FvAAnjEaVCDoEhl/XzivN8XgTVfl7Qnu =8ERm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 07/13/2010 02:12 PM, Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition.
+1 For Zope standards we'd still be very fast with supporting Python 2.7 if we do this (assuming 1.1 will be out before, say, 2012 :). Regards, Martijn
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Hanno Schlichting <hanno@hannosch.eu> wrote:
Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition.
We discussed this in todays zope-dev IRC meeting. There was general support for this approach. The 1.1 release should follow the 1.0 release rather soon in this case. I'll bring it up in the release team. Thanks all, Hanno
On 2010-07-13 14:12:01 +0200, Hanno Schlichting said:
Hi.
We have Python 2.7 final now and some work has begun on making ZTK packages compatible with it. Currently we still see various test failures in the zopeapp set though and nobody who steps up to fix them.
Apart from that, we have made a promise to support Python 2.4 up to 2.6 for the ZTK 1.0 release. The ZODB 3.10 releases do no longer support Python 2.4 but require 2.5. The ZODB 3.9.x releases are in maintenance mode for a while and currently don't support Python 2.7. I doubt that we can get official 2.7 support for the 3.9.x release line.
Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition.
Yes, ZTK 1.0 should become stable/released soon. Adding a new Python version or removing one, doesn't help. But I really want to see Python 2.7 support rather soon. So how do we actually proceed there? Even after ZTK 1.0 is out, how is the transition made to 1.1? I suppose there could be a 1.0.1 at the same time as a 1.1.0. Regards, -- Christian Zagrodnick · cz@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 4 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2010-07-13 14:12:01 +0200, Hanno Schlichting said:
Hi.
We have Python 2.7 final now and some work has begun on making ZTK packages compatible with it. Currently we still see various test failures in the zopeapp set though and nobody who steps up to fix them.
Apart from that, we have made a promise to support Python 2.4 up to 2.6 for the ZTK 1.0 release. The ZODB 3.10 releases do no longer support Python 2.4 but require 2.5. The ZODB 3.9.x releases are in maintenance mode for a while and currently don't support Python 2.7. I doubt that we can get official 2.7 support for the 3.9.x release line.
Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition.
Yes, ZTK 1.0 should become stable/released soon. Adding a new Python version or removing one, doesn't help.
But I really want to see Python 2.7 support rather soon. So how do we actually proceed there? Even after ZTK 1.0 is out, how is the transition made to 1.1? I suppose there could be a 1.0.1 at the same time as a 1.1.0.
As soon as we get to 1.0b1, the release team will make a 'branches/1.0' branch for stabilization, and the trunk can then be updated to drop 2.4 support and add 2.7 support. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkw8snEACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ60igCfdL4gBCN3vGoxRgsD4bKOoyhX PqMAn28VTzBhMAt5xGQSXWbIBoyhIXKB =y36w -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 2010-07-13 20:37:42 +0200, Tres Seaver said:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2010-07-13 14:12:01 +0200, Hanno Schlichting said:
Hi.
We have Python 2.7 final now and some work has begun on making ZTK packages compatible with it. Currently we still see various test failures in the zopeapp set though and nobody who steps up to fix them.
Apart from that, we have made a promise to support Python 2.4 up to 2.6 for the ZTK 1.0 release. The ZODB 3.10 releases do no longer support Python 2.4 but require 2.5. The ZODB 3.9.x releases are in maintenance mode for a while and currently don't support Python 2.7. I doubt that we can get official 2.7 support for the 3.9.x release line.
Given all of these, I'm leaning towards not supporting Python 2.7 for a ZTK 1.0 release. A 1.1 can drop Python 2.4 support and we can try to support 2.7 in addition.
Yes, ZTK 1.0 should become stable/released soon. Adding a new Python version or removing one, doesn't help.
But I really want to see Python 2.7 support rather soon. So how do we actually proceed there? Even after ZTK 1.0 is out, how is the transition made to 1.1? I suppose there could be a 1.0.1 at the same time as a 1.1.0.
As soon as we get to 1.0b1, the release team will make a 'branches/1.0' branch for stabilization, and the trunk can then be updated to drop 2.4 support and add 2.7 support.
Actually I was thinking about the individual packages. I assume dropping Python 2.4 should bump the respective package version at least from 1.x.y to 1.x+1.0, right? -- Christian Zagrodnick · cz@gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 4 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development
Am 13.07.2010, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Christian Zagrodnick <cz@gocept.com>:
Actually I was thinking about the individual packages. I assume dropping Python 2.4 should bump the respective package version at least from 1.x.y to 1.x+1.0, right?
ZTK 1.1 will officially not support Python < 2.6 but it won't seek to actively break 2.4 and 2.5. It sounds like you are suggesting what to do about packages that definitely don't work with < 2.6. While I would have thought a syntax change shouldn't mean a major version, breaking compatibility obviously warrants some thought. But then I wouldn't expect a release just based on new syntax. Have you got a specific example in mind? Charlie -- Charlie Clark Managing Director Clark Consulting & Research German Office Helmholtzstr. 20 Düsseldorf D- 40215 Tel: +49-211-600-3657 Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Charlie Clark wrote:
Am 13.07.2010, 20:48 Uhr, schrieb Christian Zagrodnick <cz@gocept.com>:
Actually I was thinking about the individual packages. I assume dropping Python 2.4 should bump the respective package version at least from 1.x.y to 1.x+1.0, right?
ZTK 1.1 will officially not support Python < 2.6 but it won't seek to actively break 2.4 and 2.5.
It sounds like you are suggesting what to do about packages that definitely don't work with < 2.6. While I would have thought a syntax change shouldn't mean a major version, breaking compatibility obviously warrants some thought. But then I wouldn't expect a release just based on new syntax. Have you got a specific example in mind?
I would say that a release of a ZTK package which drops support for a Python version still supported by ZTK 1.0.x should get a second-level version bump: that is the best possible signal that it is not a candidate for inclusion in ZTK 1.0.x+1. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkw86AgACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ4seQCfayQ3RC8Hf2UNWtFa+qshsfsT 5PUAoL7A2T1thC/nxb+wotPZsqXR2Rjd =cDFb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (7)
-
Charlie Clark -
Christian Zagrodnick -
Hanno Schlichting -
Marius Gedminas -
Martijn Faassen -
Stephan Richter -
Tres Seaver