Re: Removal of python1.5?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Penny wrote:
> For what its worth, probably very little, I agree with aj. I have a
> zope 2.3 site.
If I'm not completely wrong Zope 2.3 runs perfectly with Python 2.1.
So at least this is no reason to keep Python 1.5. (I'm not talking
about other things - just regarding to Zope 2.3.)
> My best guess is that to upgrade it to zope2.4 is going
> to be a three day (24 working hour) process. I cannot just take it down
> for three days at my convenience. This will have to wait until there is
> a plant shutdown.
>
> I suspect that anyone who has a lot of labor invested in zope 2.3 is in
> a similar circumstance. I am not sure that the upgrade process has been,
> nor even can be, fully automated; particularly if the user still has
> the older pythonscripts, rather than the Script (Python).
I fully understand your reasoning. But what about copying your Zope
application and starting a test how expensive the upgrade would be? Just
a thought. ANother thought would be asking on the Zope lists...
> For similar reasons, I can see someone beginning a migration to zope 2.4
> and then having to backtrack to 2.3 to get the site back on-line fast
> enough. In fact, I would have been far more comfortable had zope been
> versioned, so that both a 2.3 and a 2.4 could exist concurrently. This
> would make site migration far easier, as the older site could be peeled
> off folder by folder and tested that way, with less fear of major
> disruption.
As I said: Zope 2.3 depends only from Python 1.5 because the *Debian*
package has this dependency. Even if I really like to see Zope 2.4.2
in Woody I see no technical reason why Zope 2.3 should not coexist
(while builded against Python 2.1).
> If we are to argue that python is "mission critical" and that "mission
> critical applications" are to be built on it; then we have to behave
> that way. And one implication of this is that we have to be very
> conservative in dropping old major releases. A two year lead time
> notice seems not at all unreasonable. That is, put a prominent notice
> that the package will be withdrawn two years from now. Put in in both
> the Debian README, and in the python-doc front page.
>
> Then, if someone comes back whining that their application no longer
> works after that date, well, at least they will have been put firmly
> on notice of the deadline, with enough lead time to do something
> about it.
This is fair.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: