We actually require python 2.7 #30626
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
@bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit cf23dae has been approved by |
|
Over in #30618 doubts have been raised whether we actually require 2.7, perhaps it's prudent to wait for that to be resolved before merging. If we require 2.7, IMHO the wording should change from "2.7 or later (but not 3.x)" to "2.7 (not 3.x)" since that's slightly clearer. There will never be a Python 2.8, the Python core developers have made that abundantly clear (and unlike the EOL date for 2.7 this has never changed despite many attempts). |
|
@bors r- |
|
Not much happened in #30618 but it seems plausible Python 2.7 is actually required. Go ahead and merge this. (Though as mentioned above I'd prefer if the line read "Python 2.7 (not 3.x)".) |
|
@bors: r=luqmana rollup |
|
📌 Commit cf23dae has been approved by |
In other words, enforce what was documented in rust-lang#30626 (and also stop blaming it on LLVM, we have at least one Python script of our own). Also, there is no Python later than 2.7 and there never will be.
In other words, enforce what was documented in #30626 (and also stop blaming it on LLVM, we have at least one Python script of our own). Also, there is no Python later than 2.7 and there never will be.
Fixes #30618