From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luke Diamand Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] git-p4: add option to store files in Git LFS on import Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:07:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1440764691-62254-1-git-send-email-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <9951C805-DFBF-47AC-B215-B9C657D4A852@gmail.com> <1D65DD68-EE3F-4C87-9B5F-E436BA13704E@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Git Users To: Lars Schneider X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 03 12:07:40 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXRQe-0002gn-1a for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 12:07:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753955AbbICKHX convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:07:23 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com ([209.85.218.50]:36045 "EHLO mail-oi0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753087AbbICKHU convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:07:20 -0400 Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so24648111oib.3 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:07:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=diamand.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9iCRCBTqqmR4ADhdsJa3+0xzAwJGpVe6CHE1jNVgCgs=; b=IXzYC7L8z/4713tNuu3zltWurdebLlx8KglGSiyJ0VYeSZDnhoQGqWNqQw1vA0Z/UC o4EmPos8gj84M+8IeUq7e2vCZ8aP8wUceyLr/vpPJGCtxJSW+xIs32aehSERWwWXXebS PNFYd7+VeoaepVDGeXLOF2zze3avvjyUHAn9c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9iCRCBTqqmR4ADhdsJa3+0xzAwJGpVe6CHE1jNVgCgs=; b=WcHaKp2eG2uOpbrEtUwYFCevJ9SEGCgFcrNcKBEa/7AEaC/K4YC6fwXOPeLI+78z// VnxuHEzoAJagArD5+DI+qyUB72BNqZeeUK5KHyfZB93EhtB45zzRRZ1VnlgbSwliDyhX 4poZlsB8gt/ER0PGnj4X8P9iSm/lJEqgU7ODDo+uxZccl5tCulMpXReXQIeenTJZxKXx DoHQ4nhLRiosXgBUjHpyyajEf6Zi9X+DVqpQxhRLMbb6Sv+l9BJGVtRvqoBx7h3P1jsW up6QNVea+OKHn74fmfyYoA3eqRdrFsoVRbraDJ+81h8HyxUGrCSROU+g75yH0Ab2PhaY tGCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYZfllNWYcQIXhvqgINKffYU/JFaVfcFfMuWDPN8G3m/FciyZljNTSr09bogslkyeiNneb X-Received: by 10.202.79.11 with SMTP id d11mr7719065oib.113.1441274839373; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 03:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.46.38 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 03:07:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1D65DD68-EE3F-4C87-9B5F-E436BA13704E@gmail.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: >>> >>> Regarding Python 3: >>> Would you drop Python 2 support or do you want to support Python 2/= 3 in parallel? I would prefer the former=E2=80=A6 >> >> For quite some time we would need to support both; we can't just hav= e >> a release of git that one day breaks git-p4 for people stuck on Pyth= on >> 2. But it might not be that hard to support both (though converting >> all those print statements could be quite tiresome). > Agreed. However supporting both versions increases code complexity as= well as testing effort. Would a compromise like the following work? We= fork =E2=80=9Cgit-p4.py=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9Cgit-p4-python2.py=E2=80=9D= and just apply important bug fixes to that file. All new development h= appens on a Python 3 only git-p4.py. I'm not a python expert, but I think we're quite a way from that point anyway. I think we'd want to run 2to3 on it and make it work - at that point it should work on both python 2.7 (and earlier? I don't know) and python 3.x. By the time that's done, we may well find that we _can_ just drop python2 support, or fork, as you suggest. Running 2to3 also includes adding test cases for all the code that is in there that's not currently covered so that end-users don't find out the hard way that we've missed bits. That's why I think it's a fairly long-term goal. Regardless, I think we'd want to have a wider discussion about the best way forward, and there doesn't seem much point having that discussion now when there's no actual code!