Author eric.araujo
Recipients brian.curtin, docs@python, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, michael.driscoll, tim.golden, tshepang, weirdink13
Date 2012-05-25.19:29:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1337974184.04.0.683671741273.issue14901@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> I know Python 3.x still runs on XP too, but should we continue to mention it in our documentation? I don't know. Part
> of the reason I wrote up all that was to see if people had any well thought out arguments one way or the other on these things.

In my opinion it is simple.  PEP 11 defines when platforms are abandoned.  If a stable version like 3.2 supports XP, then its doc should say so.

> Should the patch for 1b replace Python 2.2 with Python 2.7/3.2 or just Python 3.2?

One patch for 2.7 can modernize the code, but as Brian said there is no reason to use 2.7-only idioms; just remove the really old or inelegant things.  (I haven’t looked at the FAQ to see what exactly is outdated.)

The patch for 3.2 will have to use 3.x syntax.  Note that you can make one of the two patches and let the committer port.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-05-25 19:29:44eric.araujosetrecipients: + eric.araujo, tim.golden, ezio.melotti, brian.curtin, docs@python, tshepang, weirdink13, michael.driscoll
2012-05-25 19:29:44eric.araujosetmessageid: <1337974184.04.0.683671741273.issue14901@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-05-25 19:29:43eric.araujolinkissue14901 messages
2012-05-25 19:29:43eric.araujocreate