I actually see more point in supporting 2.3 than 2.4
2.4 was a pretty worthless release :)
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:38 PM, James Mills
<prologic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:prologic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
I honestly don't see any point in supporting
python 2.3 at all, in fact I wouldn't even
support python 2.4 but that's just me.
cheers
James
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Charlie Nolan
<funnyman3595@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:funnyman3595@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> I think at this point, Pygame could drop official 2.3 support, but
> unofficially attempt to keep it working as long as practical. If
> Debian want to support new Pygame on their old version, they're
> welcome to report bugs for anything that gets broken by accident.
>
> That would avoid the unit testing headache without immediately
> breaking compatibility.
>
> -FM
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Lenard Lindstrom
<len-l@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:len-l@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> This is not about removing Python 2.3 code. It is about new code,
>> particularly the unit test stuff. It is just tedious to keep
checking if
>> some Python feature is 2.3 compatible when I no longer have 2.3
on my
>> machine.
>>
>> Lenard
>>
>> René Dudfield wrote:
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> the main reason for keeping 2.3 support was to support the last ye
>>> olde Debian stable I think... However they finally got their new
>>> release out with 2.5 as the standard python (unfortunately they
>>> released with a version of pygame from 2005). Plus the 2.3
python on
>>> tiger OSX, and not requiring msvc71 on windows too... like
everyone
>>> has already mentioned.
>>>
>>> So hopefully we don't have to worry too much about 2.3 support.
>>> However unless there's a good reason, I don't think there's no
need to
>>> rip out any 2.3 support code.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lenard Lindstrom
>> <len-l@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:len-l@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>
>>
>
--
--
-- "Problems are solved by method"