I'm +1 on going to 3.7 -- I'm running 3.6 myself.

Regarding dropping Python2 support, with almost 200 companies using
Airflow, I'd want to be very careful that we don't put any of them at a
disadvantage. For example, my former employer (a small startup) is running
on Python2 -- after I left, they don't have anyone actively maintaining it
at the company. Easing upgrades for such cases will keep them using Airflow.

It would be good to hold a survey that we promote beyond daily readers of
this mailing list and raise this as an AIP, since it's a major change.
Let's not rush it.

-s

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:24 AM Naik Kaxil <[email protected]> wrote:

> We should definitely support 3.7. I left comments on the PR @tedmiston
> regarding the same. Python 2.7 will be dropped in 2020, so I guess we
> should start planning about it. Not really 100% sure though that we should
> drop it in Airflow 2.0
>
> On 28/08/2018, 17:08, "Taylor Edmiston" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     I am onboard with dropping Python 2.x support.  Django officially
> dropped
>     Python 2.x support with their 2.0 release since December 2017.
>
>     *Taylor Edmiston*
>     Blog <https://blog.tedmiston.com/> | CV
>     <https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor> | LinkedIn
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/> | AngelList
>     <https://angel.co/taylor> | Stack Overflow
>     <https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston>
>
>
>
>     On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:03 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>     > Supporting 3.7 is absolutely something we should do - it just got
> released
>     > while we were already mid-way through the release process of 1.10 and
>     > didn't want the scope creep.
>     >
>     > I'm happy to release a 1.10.1 that supports Py 3.7. The only issue
> I've
>     > seen so far is around the use of `async` as a keyword. both in
>     >
>     > A perhaps bigger question: What are people's thoughts on dropping
> support
>     > for Python2? This wouldn't happen before 2.0 at the earliest if we
> did it.
>     > Probably something to raise an AIP for.
>     >
>     > -ash
>     >
>     > >
>
> Kaxil Naik
>
> Data Reply
> 2nd Floor, Nova South
> 160 Victoria Street, Westminster
> London SW1E 5LB - UK
> phone: +44 (0)20 7730 6000
> [email protected]
> www.reply.com
> On 28 Aug 2018, at 16:56, Taylor Edmiston <[email protected]> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > We are also running on 3.6 for some time.
>     > >
>     > > I put a quick branch together adding / upgrading to 3.6 in all of
> the
>     > > places.  CI is still running so I may expect some test failures but
>     > > hopefully nothing major.  I would be happy to merge this into
> Kaxil's
>     > > current #3815 or as a follow-on PR.  I'll paste this back onto his
> PR as
>     > > well.
>     > >
>     > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/pull/3816
>     > >
>     > > I think it's important for the project to officially support
> Python 3.6
>     > > latest especially since 3.7 is out now.  While we're on the topic,
> does
>     > > anyone else have thoughts on supporting 3.7 (perhaps unofficially
> to
>     > > start)?  I wouldn't mind starting to get that ball rolling.
>     > >
>     > > *Taylor Edmiston*
>     > > Blog <https://blog.tedmiston.com/> | CV
>     > > <https://stackoverflow.com/cv/taylor> | LinkedIn
>     > > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/tedmiston/> | AngelList
>     > > <https://angel.co/taylor> | Stack Overflow
>     > > <https://stackoverflow.com/users/149428/taylor-edmiston>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:29 AM Adam Boscarino
>     > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >> fwiw, we run Airflow on Python 3.6.
>     > >>
>     > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:30 AM Naik Kaxil <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >>> To provide more context to the issue:
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> PyPI shows that Airflow is supported on Py2.7, 3.4 and 3.5 :
>     > >>> https://pypi.org/project/apache-airflow/
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> This is picked from setup.py:
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>
>     >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-airflow/blob/26e0d449737e8671000f671d820a9537f23f345a/setup.py#L367
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> So, should we update setup.py to include 3.6 as well?
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> @bolke – Thughts?
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Kaxil Naik
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Data Reply
>     > >>> 2nd Floor, Nova South
>     > >>> 160 Victoria Street, Westminster
>     > >>> London SW1E 5LB - UK
>     > >>> phone: +44 (0)20 7730 6000
>     > >>> [email protected]
>     > >>> www.reply.com
>     > >>>
>     > >>> [image: Data Reply]
>     > >>>
>     > >>> *From: *Naik Kaxil <[email protected]>
>     > >>> *Reply-To: *"[email protected]" <
>     > >>> [email protected]>
>     > >>> *Date: *Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 13:27
>     > >>> *To: *"[email protected]" <
>     > >> [email protected]
>     > >>>>
>     > >>> *Subject: *Python 3.6 Support for Airflow 1.10.0
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Hi all,
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> @fokko – I remember that you had test Airflow on 3.6 . Can we
> include
>     > 3.6
>     > >>> in setup.py then ?
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Regards,
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Kaxil
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>> Kaxil Naik
>     > >>>
>     > >>> *Data Reply*
>     > >>> 2nd Floor, Nova South
>     > >>> 160 Victoria Street, Westminster
>     > >>> London SW1E 5LB - UK
>     > >>> phone: +44 (0)20 7730 6000
>     > >>> [email protected]
>     > >>> www.reply.com
>     > >>>
>     > >>> [image: Data Reply]
>     > >>>
>     > >>>
>     > >>
>     > >> --
>     > >> Adam Boscarino
>     > >> Senior Data Engineer
>     > >>
>     > >> [email protected]
>     > >> ------------------------------
>     > >> We're Hiring! <https://www.digitalocean.com/company/careers/> |
>     > >> @digitalocean <https://twitter.com/digitalocean>
>     > >>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to