I would be for it - but this should be accompanied with a clear proposal of the policy we are going to use forward for Airflow 3. We cannot make such "ad-hoc" decisions based on "I want to use that package". We need to have solid reasoning and clear indication for our users what kind of support they can expect for different python versions. They cannot be surprised. So far our policy was clear - we drop support when Python EOL is reached. That was easy to explain and justify. I don't have a concrete proposal, but maybe someone can come up with a rule that we codify and use from now on.
J. On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:25 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a proposal that we increase the minimum required python version to > 3.10, in a slight departure from our published python version req > https://github.com/apache/airflow?tab=readme-ov-file#support-for-python-and-kubernetes-versions > > As a reminder, Python 3.9 is already in security only fixes, and is > supported only until October 2025, or for roughly 7 months after the > release of Airflow 3.0. We’d be bringing forward the requirement on Python > 3.10 from (likely) Airflow 3.2 to 3.0. > > We discussed this briefly last July on the Airflow 3 dev calls and the > conclusion then was to follow the our policy, but I would like to make use > of a python module in the Task Execution API server that only supports > Python 3.10+. > > Pros of this: We’re more up to date, and I can use this module, rather > than having to write something myself to handle API versioning > Cons of this: it might make it harder for some users to update to 3.0 as > some users would also have to update the Python version before they can > update the Airflow version. > > Looking at the analytics data we had previously collected (which only gets > data from 2.10.x so is imperfect to be sure), I can see that Python 3.10+ > accounts for about 77% of the data. So it’s certainly not nothing. (5% are > still on 3.8, and 17% are on 3.9) > > I’m really not sold one way or another on this, so I thought I’d discuss > it with the wider community. > > What do you all think?
