On 2/21/22 19:47, Gregory Szorc wrote:
I'm ~100 patches deep into purging Python 2 from the main repo. (I
think I'll hold off submitting them until 6.1 is out the door.)
Much of the Python 2 deletion work is trivial. But one question that
isn't trivial is what to do with pycompat.py.
Some options:
a) Attempt to delete as much as pycompat.py as possible (leaving only
the pieces needed to abstract over differences in Python 3.5-3.x).
b) Leave the ~complete API provided by pycompat.py and delete pycompat
usage within the repo as much as possible.
c) Leave the ~complete API provided by pycompat.py and still use
pycompat heavily within the repo.
In my series, I'm going with "b" because after deletion of Python 2,
many of the abstractions in Python 2 no longer make much sense and
their presence doesn't accomplish much except confuse people through
extra indirection. Things like pycompat.iteritems() (which is just a
proxy to .items()) don't serve any purpose any more and IMO shouldn't
be used.
Other parts of pycompat are harder to delete. e.g. strkwargs() and
byteskwargs() are used pretty heavily and form an API contract. So I
anticipate we'll be living with them for a while.
As much as I would like to delete APIs from pycompat.py entirely, I
think we should keep them around so extensions have a stable API to
manage the Python 2 -> 3 and <=6.1 to >6.1 migrations. However, I
think we should establish a schedule for marking them as deprecated
and deleting them. This schedule should be independent of their usage
within the repo, as the two decisions are separate.
Thoughts?
Keeping the pycompat module around for some versions is probably the
simplest from as extension point of view. So (b) seems like the best
option to me.
--
Pierre-Yves David
_______________________________________________
Mercurial-devel mailing list
Mercurial-devel@mercurial-scm.org
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
