Yasuhito FUTATSUKI wrote on Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 23:09:19 +0900: > On 2019/10/16 21:12, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > This makes me wonder: should that be fixed specifically on trunk, and > > nominated for backport to 1.13, so we can possibly claim basic support > > for Python 3 in our build and test processes (in at least one released > > version) before the end of this year? > > > > Or should we reintegrate the swig-py3 branch ASAP, and nominate *that* > > for backport to 1.13, so we can have Python 3 support, including swig > > bindings? > > I prefer the latter, as one of users :) I want to use > tools/hook-scripts/mailer/mailer.py with Python 3.
If we want this to happen, we should first of all complete the swig-py3 branch and merge it to trunk. What's not clear to me is what would happen afterwards. Is anyone proposing to delay 1.13.0 until swig-py3 is merged (remember that we are already more than halfway through the soak)? If not, how would merging swig-py3 to 1.13.x coexist with the premise of "no destabilizing changes in patch releases"? Would we have to delay merging swig-py3 to 1.13.x until January, when py2 has finally gone out of support? What should we do about swig-py3 support in 1.12.x and 1.10.x, which are both LTS? Should we say anything about swig-py2 / swig-py3 in the release notes _today_, before 1.13.0 has been released, about our plans for 1.13.x patch releases?
