3 ms·

> It's because it would reportedly take 1 man year to port Mercurial to Python 3. Source? > If an organisation has lots of legacy Python code, it'll cost them

> It's because it would reportedly take 1 man year to port Mercurial to Python 3. Source? > If an organisation has lots of legacy Python code, it'll cost them a lot of effort to re-write it for Python 3, and for what? No need to port code that doesn't get a lot of attention. But if you want new features of Python, then you just have to bite the bullet. Organisations upgrade hardware all the time. They upgrade their OS somewhat regularly (on the order of years, but still). You get to make a choice - stay current and supported, or don't. As for me, I will be (and have been) writing new applications with python 3. But I still maintain and support a number of 2.7 apps which will probably never be upgraded.

cabalamat 12y ago
>> It's because it would reportedly take 1 man year to port Mercurial to Python 3. > Source? Python 3.x has proven notoriously difficult to support, due to our pervasive dependence on a byte-based encoding strategy and string manipulation. We have invested a substantial amount of time into porting at this point and we estimate at least a person-year of core developer time to make a full 3.x-compatible version. -- http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/SupportedPythonVersions http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/SupportedPythonVersions
- abuddy 12y ago
  - They don't mention in the presentation that you should port your current projects to 3.x Use it for your new projects. - It would take a lot of time for Mercurial team because they work with files and have to support a lot of cases, encodings and stuff. Python 3 does a lot for the developer now. - Mercurial is not the best example because you aren't supposed to use their internal API anyway. It's their choice to port it to 3 or not.