[Numpy-discussion] Long term plans for dropping Python 2.7
njs at pobox.com
Sat Apr 15 03:02:42 EDT 2017
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>> From numpy's perspective, I feel like the most important reason to
>> continue supporting 2.7 is our ability to convince people to keep
>> upgrading. (Not the only reason, but the most important.) What I mean
>> is: if we dropped 2.7 support tomorrow then it wouldn't actually make
>> numpy unavailable on python 2.7; it would just mean that lots of users
>> stayed at 1.12 indefinitely. Which is awkward, but it wouldn't be the
>> end of the world – numpy is mature software and 1.12 works pretty
>> well. The big problem IMO would be if this then meant that lots of
>> downstream projects felt that they had to continue supporting 1.12
>> going forward, which makes it very difficult for us to effectively
>> ship new features or even bug fixes – I mean, we can ship them, but
>> no-one will use them. And if a downstream project finds a bug in numpy
>> and can't upgrade numpy, then the tendency is to work around it
>> instead of reporting it upstream. I think this is the main thing we
>> want to avoid.
>> This kind of means that we're at the mercy of downstream projects,
>> though – if scipy/pandas/etc. decide they want to support 2.7 until
>> 2022, it might be in our best interest to do the same. But there's a
>> collective action problem here: we want to keep supporting 2.7 so long
>> as they do, but at the same time they may feel they need to keep
>> supporting 2.7 as long as we do. And all of us would prefer to drop
>> 2.7 support sooner rather than later, but we might all get stuck
>> because we're waiting for someone else to move first.
> I don't quite agree about being stuck. These kind of upgrades should and
> usually do go top of stack to bottom. Something like Jupyter which is mostly
> an end user tool goes first (they announced 2020 quite a while ago), domain
> specific packages go at a similar time, then scipy & co, and only after that
> numpy. Cython will be even later I'm sure - it still supports Python 2.6.
To make sure we're on the same page about what "2020" means here: the
latest release of IPython is 5.0, which came out in July last year.
This is the last release that supports py2; they dropped support for
py2 in master months ago, and 6.0 (whose schedule has been slipping,
but I think should be out Any Time Now?) won't support py2. Their plan
is to keep backporting bug fixes to 5.x until the end of 2017; after
that the core team won't support py2 at all. And they've also
announced that if volunteers want to step up to maintain 5.x after
that, then they're willing to keep accepting pull requests until July
I suspect that in practice that "end of 2017" date will the
end-of-support date for most intents and purposes. And for numpy with
its vaguely defined support periods, I think it makes most sense to
talk in terms of release dates; so if we want to compare
apples-to-apples, my suggestion is that numpy drops py2 support in
2020 and in that sense ipython dropped py2 support in july last year.
>> So my suggestion would be that numpy make some official announcement
>> that our plan is to drop support for python 2 immediately after
>> cpython upstream does.
> Not quite sure CPython schedule is relevant - important bug fixes haven't
> been making it into 2.7 for a very long time now, so the only change is the
> rare security patch.
Huh? 2.7 gets tons of changes: https://github.com/python/cpython/commits/2.7
Officially CPython has 2 modes for releases: "regular support" and
"security fixes only". 2.7 is special – it get regular support, and
then on top of that it also has a special exception to allow certain
kinds of major changes, like the ssl module backports.
If you know of important bug fixes that they're missing then I think
they'd like to know :-).
Anyway, the reason the CPython schedule is relevant is that once they
drop support, it *will* stop getting security patches, so it will
become increasingly impossible to use safely.
>> If worst comes to worst we can always decide to
>> extend it at the time... but if we make the announcement now, then
>> it's less likely that we'll need to :-).
> I'd be in favor of putting out a schedule in coordination with
> scipy/pandas/etc, but it probably should look more like
> - 2020: what's on http://www.python3statement.org/ now
> - 2021: scipy / pandas / scikit-learn / etc.
Um... pandas is already on python3statement.org right now :-)
> - 2022: numpy
Honestly I don't see why we should plan to support python 2 a day
longer than our major downstream dependencies. That was the point of
my first paragraph: for us the main benefit to supporting 2 is to
avoid forcing our downstream dependencies to pin an old numpy. What's
that extra year get us if they've already moved on?
The other odd thing about this schedule is that you're suggesting that
the organizing principle should be that the stack switches from
top-of-stack to bottom... but then you left out the bottom of the
- 2020: python
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
More information about the NumPy-Discussion