New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop support for Python 2.6 #250

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 19, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@latk
Member

latk commented Apr 7, 2018

I've previously advocated for keeping 2.6-compatibility, but have since changed my mind. There are lots of small inconveniences when restricted to the 2.6/3.x common subset. In particular, this drastically restricts the choice of upstream modules.

Old versions of gcovr will of course continue to work. This also means there will never be a gcovr version that works well on Windows with Python 2.6, but since that OS doesn't bundle Python such a
version lock-in is less likely.

Now is a good time to drop support since the next release will likely be 4.0, and we already have a number of other somewhat breaking changes (e.g. different installation procedure). One biggie that is still pending is improved Windows filtering (see #191). I would not like to be locked in to Python 2.6 for the rest of gcovr 4.x.

Request for comments: Are there any problems that I missed? Will this make someone else's life much more difficult? I will wait at least 2 weeks before applying this change in order to provide enough time for feedback.

@latk latk added the needs review label Apr 7, 2018

@codecov

This comment has been minimized.

codecov bot commented Apr 7, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #250 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #250   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.76%   88.76%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines        1478     1478           
  Branches      267      267           
=======================================
  Hits         1312     1312           
  Misses        108      108           
  Partials       58       58

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b605fe4...bef6219. Read the comment docs.

@hugovk

Here's the pip installs for gcovr from PyPI for last month, 2.6 is little used:

python_version percent download_count
2.7 57.95% 5,028
3.5 20.89% 1,812
3.4 19.39% 1,682
3.6 1.46% 127
2.6 0.30% 26
3.3 0.01% 1

Source: pypinfo --start-date -42 --end-date -12 --percent --pip --markdown gcovr pyversion


Remember to update python_requires in setup.py, python_requires='>=2.7, !=3.0.*, !=3.1.*, !=3.2.*, !=3.3.*', would also skip 3.0-3.3.

@@ -326,10 +326,12 @@ Installation
Which environments does ``gcovr`` support?
- Python: 2.7+ and 3.4+.

This comment has been minimized.

@hugovk

@latk latk added this to the gcovr 4.0 milestone Apr 15, 2018

@latk latk force-pushed the latk:drop-2.6 branch from ecacd9c to a599cec May 19, 2018

Drop support for Python 2.6
I've previously advocated for keeping 2.6-compatibility, but have
changed my mind. There are lots of small inconveniences when restricted
to the 2.6/3.x common subset. In particular, this drastically restricts
the choice of upstream modules.

Old versions of gcovr will of course continue to work.
This also means there will never be a gcovr version that works well on
Windows with Python 2.6, but since that OS doesn't bundle Python such a
version lock-in is less likely.

@latk latk force-pushed the latk:drop-2.6 branch from a599cec to bef6219 May 19, 2018

@latk latk merged commit bef6219 into gcovr:master May 19, 2018

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@latk latk deleted the latk:drop-2.6 branch May 19, 2018

@latk latk removed the needs review label May 19, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment