asf-tooling commented on issue #346:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/346#issuecomment-4410368714

   <!-- gofannon-issue-triage-bot v2 -->
   
   **Automated triage** — analyzed at `main@2da7807a`
   
   **Type:** `discussion`  •  **Classification:** `no_action`  •  
**Confidence:** `high`  •  ⚠️ **Possibly stale**
   **Application domain(s):** `shared_infrastructure`
   
   ### Summary
   Issue #346 requests migrating the project from Python 3.13 to Python 3.14. 
@sbp explicitly framed this as 'an investigation into the feasibility of this 
migration', noting the main concerns are: (1) whether Python 3.14 and tooling 
are available in developer environments and containers, (2) editor/plugin 
support, and (3) transitive dependency compatibility. The codebase currently 
pins Python 3.13 in multiple locations. No feasibility findings have been 
reported back, and no action has been taken.
   
   ### Proposed approach
   This issue is explicitly framed as a feasibility investigation by @sbp. 
Before any code changes can be made, the team needs to verify: (1) that a 
Python 3.14 Alpine Docker base image is available and stable, (2) that all 
dependencies in pyproject.toml have wheels or source compatibility with 3.14 
(particularly native extensions like `hyperscan`, `rpgp-py`, `blake3`, 
`cryptography`, and `greenlet`), (3) that development tooling (pyright, ruff, 
djlint, pre-commit) supports 3.14, and (4) that the `generics.py.patch` applied 
in the Dockerfile is still needed or compatible.
   
   No diff is proposed because this remains an open investigation — no 
feasibility results have been reported, and the discussion has not progressed 
to a decision point.
   
   ### Open questions
   - Is a stable python:3.14-alpine Docker base image available?
   - Do native-extension dependencies (hyperscan, rpgp-py, blake3, 
cryptography, greenlet) have Python 3.14 wheels or source compatibility?
   - Does the asfquart dependency (pinned to a git branch) work on Python 3.14?
   - Is the generics.py.patch still needed on Python 3.14, or has the upstream 
issue been fixed?
   - Does sqlmodel 0.0.24 support Python 3.14 (particularly around annotation 
handling noted in atr/models/sql.py line 24)?
   - What was the outcome of issue #339 that this migration was expected to 
help resolve?
   
   ### Staleness assessment
   
   _opened 165 days ago; last human comment 165 days ago._
   
   The issue was created 165 days ago with only one comment (from the same day, 
by @sbp). There has been zero activity since — no feasibility findings 
reported, no dependency checks performed, no decision made. The code still uses 
Python 3.13 everywhere, so the premise remains valid, but the investigation has 
not progressed at all.
   
   _The agent reviewed this issue and is not proposing patches in this run. 
Review the existing-code citations and open questions above before deciding 
next steps._
   
   ### Files examined
   - `.python-version`
   - `Dockerfile.alpine`
   - `pyproject.toml`
   - `migrations/env.py`
   - `atr/config.py`
   - `atr/server.py`
   - `atr/db/__init__.py`
   - `atr/models/sql.py`
   
   ---
   *Draft from a triage agent. A human reviewer should validate before merging 
any change. The agent did not run tests or verify diffs apply.*


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to