Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version
support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating
language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.
A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, with
a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most likely be a
quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC. The discussed approach,
following the Python versions life-cycle, could possibly look a little
different, however the forms and modes for this should be established likewise
with a RFC.
If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months to
work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, October,
in time for the 3.6 retirement.
Cheers,
Nicklas
On Sunday, 28 February 2021, 21:55:57 CET, Anna Petrášová
<kratocha...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 1:45 PM Veronica Andreo <veroand...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Nicklas,
Thanks much for such a clearly written RFC! I only made very minor cosmetic
changes.
Are there any other comments, objections or suggestions? Or further aspects to
be discussed?If no, maybe we can vote on it soon-ish, no?
Have a nice weekend :)Vero
Regarding Python support, I thought we could add more specific rules for
updating it, since that will happen fairly often. E.g. "For a new release of a
minor GRASS version, the Python minimum version should be raised if the current
minimum Python version reaches end of life or there are any important technical
reasons."Once we need to update the min version (next year I suppose), would
this RFC be updated? I guess I am unsure if the RFC is supposed to work.
Anna
El mar, 16 feb 2021 a las 15:36, Nicklas Larsson via grass-psc
(<grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org>) escribió:
I added the RFC draft to GRASS Wiki [1].
Well, it's only a draft, so any thoughts, modifications, additions are most
welcome!
Nicklas
[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport
On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 14:34:44 CET, Moritz Lennert
<mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
Am 11. Februar 2021 13:29:10 MEZ schrieb Nicklas Larsson <n_lars...@yahoo.com>:
> Moritz,
>
>I'd be honoured!
>I will put it on GRASS Wiki [1] if you don't have another suggestion and
>notify here when done.
Great, thanks a lot !
Moritz
>
>[1] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 11 February 2021, 12:54:30 CET, Moritz Lennert
><mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>
> On 10/02/21 13:16, Nicklas Larsson wrote:
>> It would be most favourable for all contributors and the project if the
>> community could come to an agreement on this topic. I see no reason to
>> postpone a decision on this much longer.
>>
>> The final word on this need to be that of the PSC's. Whether through
>> simple vote or a RFC. However, a sounding of the opinion of the
>> dev-community on this matter is of equal importance and can be of help
>> for the PSC.
>
>Thanks a lot, Nicklas, for this very comprehensive summary !
>
>A suggestion made at the first meeting of the new PSC was to use this
>discussion as a use case for a more extensive usage of RFC's to put
>important decisions into more permanent documents than mailing list
>archives and to provoke a formal decision as you suggest. Would you be
>willing to write a first draft of such an RFC ?
>
>Moritz
>
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
