On Saturday 13 April 2013 16:37:55 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> facepalm.jpg
By using a polar bear instead of a cat you have spoken to my heart. ;-)
Cheers,
--
José Abílio
José Matos wrote:
> Oh, BTW and then if we go with python 3.x we can call the next version lyx
> 3.0. :-D
> Or we can already adopt the firefox convention and go with lyx-3.0 for new
> release. :-)
195.113.26.193/~sanda/facepalm.jpg :D
On Saturday 13 April 2013 11:36:18 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that
> > allow an easy update to python 3.3.
>
> I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in
> changelogs, Uwe already ships it i
José Matos wrote:
> In the mean time it is possible to use the features of python 2.7 that allow
> an easy update to python 3.3.
I hope we already at least support python 2.7, cause what I see in changelogs,
Uwe already ships it in Win version :)
> Note that even if we go python 3 we should set
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:09:02 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
> Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
>
> What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
>
> Pavel
In the mean time it is possible to
José Matos wrote:
> So these are the facts. The question then is how do we want to proceed?
I thought we want to be >3.0 compatible and ditch 2.x series completely(?).
Otherwise it looks like just maintenace burden without profit.
What's the status of python 3 on fedora/debian/suse?
Pavel
On Friday 12 April 2013 12:35:57 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> You are the pythonist here
> P
:-)
The issue is what is the minimum version of python that we want to support. If
we decide to stay with python 2 as the default version the question then
becomes what is the minimum version we want to suppor
