It makes sense to me to remove Py3, having ant as the build tool is awkward indeed. Thanks for sharing your vision.
Cheers, Fokko Op vr 22 nov. 2019 om 16:38 schreef Ivan Greene <[email protected]>: > One more task for this subject, the python 3 implementation does not yet > have support for Avro logical types as far as I’ve been able to tell. So a > decent amount of code would need to be ported there. > > —Ivan > > > On Nov 22, 2019, at 7:40 AM, Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for the info; it sounds reasonable to me! (A big +1 to getting > > rid of ant, of course). > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM Michael A. Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> i would like to update and maintain the py colleges and deprecate and > >> eventually remove the py3 one. > >> > >> 1. Despite being less modern, the py codebase has been kept somewhat > more > >> pythonic. Capitalizing `schema.Parse` and the literal translation of the > >> java parsing normal form implementation are two oddities we could > address. > >> There are several issues and pull requests inquiring why the two python > >> implementations aren't API compatible. > >> 2. Several modules in py3 were never completed. I called out txipc as > >> broken, but the tether stuff is missing entirely. > >> > >> Things we need to do to make this possible: > >> > >> 1. Make the py codebase compatible with py3.5. I've been working on > this, > >> while still trying to maintain 2.7 compatibility for now. > >> 2. I want to port py3's setup approach, making it possible to package > and > >> test py without ant. There are lots of benefits, but the only thing on > >> topic here is to be able to be able to use multiple python versions at > the > >> same time. (We should look at tox soon.) > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:23 Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any > >>> interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future > >>> releases of Avro? > >>> > >>> There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 > >>> (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. > >>> > >>> I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or > >>> dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. > >>> > >>> Ryan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Inline… > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > >>>>> support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > >>>>> I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > >>>>> release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. > >>>> > >>>> I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > >>>>> equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that > >>>> lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, > which I > >>>> have not yet figured out how to port. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > >>>>> [2] https://python3statement.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > <[email protected] > >>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in > general, > >>>>> since > >>>>>> this version is EOL after this year. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, Fokko > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > >>>>> [email protected]>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase > >>> to > >>>>>>> support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > >>>>> structs, > >>>>>>> a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but > >>> wanted > >>>>> to > >>>>>>> bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure > >>> reason to > >>>>> keep > >>>>>>> these things around. > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >
