On 2020-01-23 07:20, Victor Stinner wrote:
Python 3.9 introduces many small incompatible changes which broke tons
On 2020-01-31 19:47, Mike Miller wrote:
There's a well-known and established way of signaling breaking changes in software platforms—it is to increment the major version number.
Rather than debating the merits of breaking code on 3.9 or 3.10, wouldn't it make more sense to do it in a Python 4.0 instead? Well, either of these strategies sound logical to me:
- Python 4.0 with removal of all of the Python 3-era deprecations - Continuing Python 3.1X with no breaks
In other words, we should keep compatibility, or not. In any case, from the looks of it these will be tiny breaks compared to the Unicode transition.
Ethan Furman wrote:
I've gotta say, I like that plan. Instead of going to x.10, go to x+1.0. Every ten years we bump the major version and get rid of all the deprecations.
Petr Viktorin wrote:
I don't. I hope the 10-year (and counting) transition from Python 2 to Python 3 will not become a tradition. I'd rather iterate on making removals less drastic (e.g. by making the DeprecationWarnings more visible). Iterate with a feedback loop, rather than do a one-time change and hope that everything goes well.
As a user I would much rather know that my 3.2 code worked in every version of 3.x, and not have to make changes in 3.5 and 3.7 and 3.11. Talk about death by paper cuts! I'd either be stuck updating already working code to get the benefits of the latest Python 3, or having multiple versions of Python 3 on my system. Both options are galling. Having the latest Python 2, the latest Python 3, and the latest Python 4 is much more palatable. -- ~Ethan~