Thanks for chiming in, everyone. It looks like there are no major concerns.

Kind regards,
Fokko

Op za 11 okt 2025 om 20:28 schreef Drew <[email protected]>:

> +1 to remove the support of 3.9.
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 11:28 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 6:31 AM Steven Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 3:10 PM Alex Stephen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Python 3.9 is EOL. We shouldn't be encouraging users to stay on EOL
>>>> versions of Python.
>>>>
>>>> This can be our community's contribution towards the Python ecosystem's
>>>> migration off 3.9. It's great to help out our fellow OSS projects!
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 8:48 AM Honah J. <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 to remove 3.9 support. Thanks for driving this!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Jonas (Honah)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 10:07 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks !
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> JB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 7:06 AM Fokko Driesprong <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Hi everyone,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I wanted to check if there are any objections to dropping Python
>>>>>> 3.9 support. Dropping means that we won't publish 3.9 wheels anymore.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The two main reasons to do this:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Reduce the CI cost when we add 3.13
>>>>>> > Downstream projects like numpy and ray often support three Python
>>>>>> versions. If we want to support more, we have to have conditional
>>>>>> dependencies based on the Python version. This makes Poetry very slow, as
>>>>>> the work effectively doubles.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Python 3.9 is marked as EoL next week. Around 5% of the downloads
>>>>>> are Python 3.9. But as Kevin pointed out, most of that will probably be 
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> CI.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Let us know if there are any objections!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Kind regards,
>>>>>> > Fokko
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>

Reply via email to