It seems like it would be a good idea to include a section for periodic review and updating of the language standards support. That is, do we review and reissue with each major version release (e.g., 7 -> 8)? Each sub-major release (7.8 -> 7.9). Or do we review and potentially update with any major/sub-major update of the language and its distribution (e.g., Python 2 -> 3 or 3.7 -> 3.8)? Or are there other ways to decide when to do review and update this standard?
Michael _____________________________ C. Michael Barton Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological Sciences Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-2402 USA voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC) fax: 480-965-7671(SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC) www: http://shesc.asu.edu, https://complexity.asu.edu, http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton On Mar 16, 2021, at 12:30 PM, Veronica Andreo <veroand...@gmail.com<mailto:veroand...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone Thanks for all the feedback. In practical terms then, shall we: - remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python version? - add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything altogether? Vero [0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!IGGdA3JGHwIvM70uQAxKgP-SoAnSPcupVWcVBGmLKhV4ocBAMqqxF8S2vhiwWU_ODXbcMWU$> El mar, 2 mar 2021 a las 22:54, Markus Neteler (<nete...@osgeo.org<mailto:nete...@osgeo.org>>) escribió: Hi all, On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev <grass-...@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-...@lists.osgeo.org>> wrote: > > Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version > support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating > language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own. I agree to both: - we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest still supported Python version, - and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion (RFC if needed). I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC. > A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, > with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most > likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC. I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise. > The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could > possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this should > be established likewise with a RFC. > > If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months > to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, > October, in time for the 3.6 retirement. Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion. The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite different and not easy to handle in a single RFC. Just my 0.02 cents, Markus _______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!IGGdA3JGHwIvM70uQAxKgP-SoAnSPcupVWcVBGmLKhV4ocBAMqqxF8S2vhiwWU_OZbE7gBY$
_______________________________________________ grass-psc mailing list grass-psc@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
