[PATCH] util: subclass deque for Python 2.4 backwards compatibility

[Augie Fackler]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 07:44 -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>>
>> > On 04/06/12 09:58, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Matt Mackall<mpm at selenic.com>  wrote:
>> >>> Thanks, queued for default.
>> >> Would it perhaps be time to drop 2.4? These things starting to slip by
>> >> is usually a good indication.
>> >>
>> >> Debian stable has 2.6, RHEL users have had 2.6 since 2010 (RHEL 5 is
>> >> still on 2.4, it will be supported for 5 more years.)
>> >
>> > For the record, it was discussed at last sprint and the decision summarized at http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/SupportedPythonVersions#Future_support_plan .
>>
>> What I took away from the sprint was that I could make a run at
>> ripping out 2.4 features and getting us on b-prefixed strings (and
>> u-prefixed ones if we have any of those) at the end of 2012/beginning
>> of 2013.
>
> You might as well clone and start hacking today. Since we're not
> dropping 2.x any time soon, there won't be much to talk about until it
> runs some basic commands on both 2.x and 3.x from the same code base.

Doing that at all sensibly implies requiring at least Python 2.6 IMO.
Anything else is likely to be a path to madness (I've talked to some
projects that are doing the mixed-universe 2.x and 3.x codebase thing,
and this is by far the easiest route.) That's why I want to drop 2.4
(and 2.5, though nobody seems to care about that one) so badly.

Are you suggesting I should do the 2.6 upgrade work and get basic
commands working on 3.x, and then if that all works mail out an RFC
series, and that might be enough to convince us to drop 2.4 more
quickly than the end of 2012? Otherwise, I'm more inclined to wait for
EO2012.

>
> --
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>