On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 4:41 AM Aaron Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have seen problems popping up already in a few places with latest > numpy not supported what is still the most commonly used Python version > (don't have links, sorry - but they were real packaging-related issues). So > I don't think it makes sense to shorten the time window. I also don't think > there's a need to drop one version that's urgent - it's some effort and CI > time, but the balance is decent right now. > > It's hard to say the balance is decent right now if the faster cadence > isn't even in full effect yet (as I noted in my original email). > > Generally I would say that dropping support only means that users of > older versions would simply need to use an older version of the > library. > That is not the full story unfortunately. The Python packaging tooling (Pip, Poetry et al) is imperfect, so if other packages depend on NumPy and then at install time a tool figures out that latest NumPy cannot be used, or somewhere there's an upper bound in the version constraints explicitly, some things tend to go wrong. > > > There was a lot of discussion around how big the window should be with > 42mo being about in the middle of what people advocated for. I am aware of > institutions that are on an every-other Python upgrade pattern (py37 -> > py39 -> (expected) py311) so always having at least 3 Pythons in the window > is important. Based on what we have seen so far, I still think 42mo is a > good choice, but do not think we have seen it in operations long enough to > draw any conclusions (the downside of year-scale planning is you need to > wait years to see if it worked out like you expected!) and hence do not > think we should make any changes to the time window for another few years. > That said, I am currently sympathetic to making the window longer and > against making it shorter. > > The reason I brought this up is because we were looking at whether it > makes sense to use NEP 29 for SymPy. Obviously we aren't bound to > using it, but given this apparent discrepancy in the text (which still > exists), What discrepancy? Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
