On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 14:14, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com> wrote:
On 24. 01. 20 14:02, Eric V. Smith wrote:
I think the concern is that with removing so many deprecated features, we're effectively telling libraries that if they want to support 3.9, they'll have stop supporting 2.7. And many library authors aren't willing to do that yet. Will they be willing to in another year? I can't say.
The concern is not that they don't want to drop 2.7 support, but that is is a nontrivail task to actaually do and we cannot expect them to do it within the first couple weeks of 2020. While at the same time, we want them to support 3.9 since the early development versisons in order to eb able to detect regressions early in the dev cycle.
But couldn't they have done that by adding the compatibility shims Victor described. Sure, they are messy, and sure, it would be more convenient not to have to. But the various dates have been known for some time now. Unless you're saying that the change to a yearly schedule for 3.9 has suddenly compressed timescales to an extent that projects can't cope with. So maybe there is a reason why people might legitimately have an issue here. Having said that, I think that far more people will see this as yet another delay before 2.7 dies, and treat it as one more reason to do nothing. So I still have reservations. I have already said that the 5 deprecations Victor described seem minor enough that one release's delay is not a big deal. If that's enough for the people hit by the shorter 3.9 cycle, then great. But it should *not* set a precedent that we're willing to repeatedly have this sort of discussion. It should be a one-off, and definitely not set the scene for a series of "and can this one be added as well" requests. I assume it's obvious that 3.10 would be a hard deadline, as well. There's no justification for deferring deprecations past then. Paul PS As a pip developer, I fully expect to be supporting Python 2.7 for a while yet. So I'm not talking from a perspective of someone who has happily dropped Python 2 support and doesn't understand the issues. But I don't expect *Python* to maintain my compatibility for me, and I don't see why others should, either. And yes, that does include these 5.