Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
It makes sense to me to remove Py3, having ant as the build tool is awkward indeed. Thanks for sharing your vision. Cheers, Fokko Op vr 22 nov. 2019 om 16:38 schreef Ivan Greene : > One more task for this subject, the python 3 implementation does not yet > have support for Avro logical types as far as I’ve been able to tell. So a > decent amount of code would need to be ported there. > > —Ivan > > > On Nov 22, 2019, at 7:40 AM, Ryan Skraba wrote: > > > > Thanks for the info; it sounds reasonable to me! (A big +1 to getting > > rid of ant, of course). > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM Michael A. Smith > wrote: > >> > >> i would like to update and maintain the py colleges and deprecate and > >> eventually remove the py3 one. > >> > >> 1. Despite being less modern, the py codebase has been kept somewhat > more > >> pythonic. Capitalizing `schema.Parse` and the literal translation of the > >> java parsing normal form implementation are two oddities we could > address. > >> There are several issues and pull requests inquiring why the two python > >> implementations aren't API compatible. > >> 2. Several modules in py3 were never completed. I called out txipc as > >> broken, but the tether stuff is missing entirely. > >> > >> Things we need to do to make this possible: > >> > >> 1. Make the py codebase compatible with py3.5. I've been working on > this, > >> while still trying to maintain 2.7 compatibility for now. > >> 2. I want to port py3's setup approach, making it possible to package > and > >> test py without ant. There are lots of benefits, but the only thing on > >> topic here is to be able to be able to use multiple python versions at > the > >> same time. (We should look at tox soon.) > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:23 Ryan Skraba wrote: > >> > >>> Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any > >>> interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future > >>> releases of Avro? > >>> > >>> There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 > >>> (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. > >>> > >>> I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or > >>> dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. > >>> > >>> Ryan > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith > > >>> wrote: > > Inline… > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. > > > i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. > > I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. > > > Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that > lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, > which I > have not yet figured out how to port. > > [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in > general, > > since > >> this version is EOL after this year. > >> > >> Cheers, Fokko > >> > >> Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > > mich...@smith-li.com>: > >> > >>> There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase > >>> to > >>> support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > > structs, > >>> a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > >>> > >>> I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but > >>> wanted > > to > >>> bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure > >>> reason to > > keep > >>> these things around. > >>> > > > >>> > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
One more task for this subject, the python 3 implementation does not yet have support for Avro logical types as far as I’ve been able to tell. So a decent amount of code would need to be ported there. —Ivan > On Nov 22, 2019, at 7:40 AM, Ryan Skraba wrote: > > Thanks for the info; it sounds reasonable to me! (A big +1 to getting > rid of ant, of course). > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM Michael A. Smith > wrote: >> >> i would like to update and maintain the py colleges and deprecate and >> eventually remove the py3 one. >> >> 1. Despite being less modern, the py codebase has been kept somewhat more >> pythonic. Capitalizing `schema.Parse` and the literal translation of the >> java parsing normal form implementation are two oddities we could address. >> There are several issues and pull requests inquiring why the two python >> implementations aren't API compatible. >> 2. Several modules in py3 were never completed. I called out txipc as >> broken, but the tether stuff is missing entirely. >> >> Things we need to do to make this possible: >> >> 1. Make the py codebase compatible with py3.5. I've been working on this, >> while still trying to maintain 2.7 compatibility for now. >> 2. I want to port py3's setup approach, making it possible to package and >> test py without ant. There are lots of benefits, but the only thing on >> topic here is to be able to be able to use multiple python versions at the >> same time. (We should look at tox soon.) >> >> What do you think? >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:23 Ryan Skraba wrote: >> >>> Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any >>> interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future >>> releases of Avro? >>> >>> There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 >>> (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. >>> >>> I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or >>> dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith >>> wrote: Inline… On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I have not yet figured out how to port. [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko >>> > wrote: >> >> I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > since >> this version is EOL after this year. >> >> Cheers, Fokko >> >> Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > mich...@smith-li.com>: >> >>> There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase >>> to >>> support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > structs, >>> a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. >>> >>> I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but >>> wanted > to >>> bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure >>> reason to > keep >>> these things around. >>> > >>>
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
Thanks for the info; it sounds reasonable to me! (A big +1 to getting rid of ant, of course). On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:56 PM Michael A. Smith wrote: > > i would like to update and maintain the py colleges and deprecate and > eventually remove the py3 one. > > 1. Despite being less modern, the py codebase has been kept somewhat more > pythonic. Capitalizing `schema.Parse` and the literal translation of the > java parsing normal form implementation are two oddities we could address. > There are several issues and pull requests inquiring why the two python > implementations aren't API compatible. > 2. Several modules in py3 were never completed. I called out txipc as > broken, but the tether stuff is missing entirely. > > Things we need to do to make this possible: > > 1. Make the py codebase compatible with py3.5. I've been working on this, > while still trying to maintain 2.7 compatibility for now. > 2. I want to port py3's setup approach, making it possible to package and > test py without ant. There are lots of benefits, but the only thing on > topic here is to be able to be able to use multiple python versions at the > same time. (We should look at tox soon.) > > What do you think? > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:23 Ryan Skraba wrote: > > > Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any > > interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future > > releases of Avro? > > > > There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 > > (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. > > > > I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or > > dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith > > wrote: > > > > > > Inline… > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > > > > > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > > > > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > > > > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > > > > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. > > > > > > > > > i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. > > > > > > I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > > > > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. > > > > > > > > > Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that > > > lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I > > > have not yet figured out how to port. > > > > > > [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > > > > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > > > > since > > > > > this version is EOL after this year. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > > > > > > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > > > > mich...@smith-li.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase > > to > > > > > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > > > > structs, > > > > > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > > > > > > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but > > wanted > > > > to > > > > > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure > > reason to > > > > keep > > > > > > these things around. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
i would like to update and maintain the py colleges and deprecate and eventually remove the py3 one. 1. Despite being less modern, the py codebase has been kept somewhat more pythonic. Capitalizing `schema.Parse` and the literal translation of the java parsing normal form implementation are two oddities we could address. There are several issues and pull requests inquiring why the two python implementations aren't API compatible. 2. Several modules in py3 were never completed. I called out txipc as broken, but the tether stuff is missing entirely. Things we need to do to make this possible: 1. Make the py codebase compatible with py3.5. I've been working on this, while still trying to maintain 2.7 compatibility for now. 2. I want to port py3's setup approach, making it possible to package and test py without ant. There are lots of benefits, but the only thing on topic here is to be able to be able to use multiple python versions at the same time. (We should look at tox soon.) What do you think? On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 04:23 Ryan Skraba wrote: > Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any > interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future > releases of Avro? > > There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 > (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. > > I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or > dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. > > Ryan > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith > wrote: > > > > Inline… > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > > > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > > > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > > > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > > > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. > > > > > > i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. > > > > I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > > > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. > > > > > > Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that > > lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I > > have not yet figured out how to port. > > > > [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > > > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > > > since > > > > this version is EOL after this year. > > > > > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > > > > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > > > mich...@smith-li.com>: > > > > > > > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase > to > > > > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > > > structs, > > > > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > > > > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but > wanted > > > to > > > > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure > reason to > > > keep > > > > > these things around. > > > > > > > > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
Tick-tock... just bumping this up as the year end approaches! Any interest in making a statement or plan for python2 support for future releases of Avro? There should be one more maintenance release of python 2.7 in 2020 (after sunset) for the accumulated fixes. I'm in the context of looking at the docker+build scripts: keeping or dropping the python2 runtime has little significant impact. Ryan On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:22 PM Michael A. Smith wrote: > > Inline… > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > > > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. > > > i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. > > I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. > > > Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that > lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I > have not yet figured out how to port. > > [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > > since > > > this version is EOL after this year. > > > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > > mich...@smith-li.com>: > > > > > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to > > > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > > structs, > > > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted > > to > > > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to > > keep > > > > these things around. > > > > > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
Inline… On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:03 Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python > support [1] as other projects have done [2]. > I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest > release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. i agree wholeheartedly, but only python 2.7. I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature > equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. Not perfectly, and there is work on that, but the biggest gap is that lang/py is much more extensively tested, but its tests use pyant, which I have not yet figured out how to port. [1] https://pythonclock.org/ > [2] https://python3statement.org/ > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko > wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, > since > > this version is EOL after this year. > > > > Cheers, Fokko > > > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith < > mich...@smith-li.com>: > > > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to > > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, > structs, > > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted > to > > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to > keep > > > these things around. > > > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
Probably is a good idea that we publish our policy around python support [1] as other projects have done [2]. I think supporting python 2 makes sense at least for our latest release of this year so probably 1.9.x or eventually 1.10.x. I am not at all familiar with our python3 codebase, are we feature equivalent? otherwise maybe worth to create JIRAs and work on those. [1] https://pythonclock.org/ [2] https://python3statement.org/ On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:38 AM Driesprong, Fokko wrote: > > I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, since > this version is EOL after this year. > > Cheers, Fokko > > Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith : > > > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to > > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, structs, > > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted to > > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to keep > > these things around. > >
Re: Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
I'm not sure how much effort we should put into Python2.7 in general, since this version is EOL after this year. Cheers, Fokko Op ma 24 jun. 2019 om 03:20 schreef Michael A. Smith : > There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to > support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, structs, > a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. > > I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted to > bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to keep > these things around. >
Consider Python < 2.7 obsolete
There's some not-insignificant complexity in the lang/py codebase to support derelict versions of Python. There are polyfills for json, structs, a whole "StoppableHTTPServer" in avro.tool. I created AVRO-2445 and will start removing this stuff now, but wanted to bounce the idea around the list in case there's some obscure reason to keep these things around.
