Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On September 16, 2019 6:21:42 PM UTC, Jonathan Carter wrote: >On 2019/09/12 18:30, Mo Zhou wrote: >> Agreed. there are already python2 forks such as: >> https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon >> >> It may sound funny but I don't hope any python2 stuff get back with >> a new name after the python2 removal. But, it could happen if some >> people is willing to support and maintain... >> >> How should Debian react if someone submitted an ITP for python2 >> forks, such as the tauthon above? > >It would probably be handled just like any other piece of new software >entering Debian. I can't speak for the entire Python team, but the >Python team would probably not pay much (or any) attention to it >whatsoever and it would be unfair for anyone to expect that from the >Python team. Just like with any other software, it would just need an >active set of contributors behind it. > >Personally I just don't think putting a significant amount of effort >into a python2 fork is worth while long-term. It's just adding more >technical debt. Instagram is one of the largest sites in the world and >switched over to python3 because they say they realised that no >significant performance work is still going into python2, that's all >happening in the python3 world now. JP Morgan's Athena[1] project has >over 35 million lines of python code over 150 000 python modules and >they regret starting so late but aim to complete migrating the critical >core pieces by the 2nd quarter of 2020. > >My point is that the world is moving to python3, maybe not as fast as >everyone would like, but putting in additional work to stick with >python2 would mean confining yourself to an ever faster shrinking >universe and earning interest on that technical debt and you'll end up >with code that no one will want to touch in either terms of working on >it or using it. > >So, I don't think it would be a problem accepting such fork in Debian, >I >think Debian would be indifferent to it, but in terms of a consumer of >such a fork I believe it's better to pull the plaster fast, do the work >now to get it updated, or it will just get more expensive in the >future. It's not that simple. If such a fork were to be packaged for some purpose that only needed the standard library, then maybe, but generally that's not enough. The ecosystem of python modules and extensions requires integration. I don't think it's reasonable to ask maintainers of these packages to support such a fork, which would limit it's utility in the archive. I've no doubt there will be many organizations running python2.7 or forks of it for many years to come, but I don't think it's something we can usefully support in the Debian archive. Scott K
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On 2019/09/12 18:30, Mo Zhou wrote: > Agreed. there are already python2 forks such as: > https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon > > It may sound funny but I don't hope any python2 stuff get back with > a new name after the python2 removal. But, it could happen if some > people is willing to support and maintain... > > How should Debian react if someone submitted an ITP for python2 > forks, such as the tauthon above? It would probably be handled just like any other piece of new software entering Debian. I can't speak for the entire Python team, but the Python team would probably not pay much (or any) attention to it whatsoever and it would be unfair for anyone to expect that from the Python team. Just like with any other software, it would just need an active set of contributors behind it. Personally I just don't think putting a significant amount of effort into a python2 fork is worth while long-term. It's just adding more technical debt. Instagram is one of the largest sites in the world and switched over to python3 because they say they realised that no significant performance work is still going into python2, that's all happening in the python3 world now. JP Morgan's Athena[1] project has over 35 million lines of python code over 150 000 python modules and they regret starting so late but aim to complete migrating the critical core pieces by the 2nd quarter of 2020. My point is that the world is moving to python3, maybe not as fast as everyone would like, but putting in additional work to stick with python2 would mean confining yourself to an ever faster shrinking universe and earning interest on that technical debt and you'll end up with code that no one will want to touch in either terms of working on it or using it. So, I don't think it would be a problem accepting such fork in Debian, I think Debian would be indifferent to it, but in terms of a consumer of such a fork I believe it's better to pull the plaster fast, do the work now to get it updated, or it will just get more expensive in the future. -Jonathan [1] https://www.techrepublic.com/article/jpmorgans-athena-has-35-million-lines-of-python-code-and-wont-be-updated-to-python-3-in-time/ -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer - https://wiki.debian.org/highvoltage ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ https://debian.org | https://jonathancarter.org ⠈⠳⣄ Be Bold. Be brave. Debian has got your back.
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On 2019-09-12 22:46, Drew Parsons wrote: https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only. The site is designed for python packages specifically, to have only Python3 supported by end of 2020. But it seems to me it would be in the spirit of the site to add Debian's pledge to remove Python2 (we are currently in the middle of doing just that). Is this a thing that we want to do as a project, to add Debian to https://python3statement.org/ ? Thanks all for the discussion. Looks like we don't have consensus for listing on python3statement.org. As a whole-system distribution, we're running on a different timeframe to the individual python packages. But in any case, the process of removing python2 packages from Debian is underway. By end of 2020 we might be able to judge whether it will be a Release Target for bullseye. Drew
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 09:30:09AM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote: > How should Debian react if someone submitted an ITP for python2 > forks, such as the tauthon above? "Go ahead but don't interfere with other packages, including the Python 3 interpreter and the Python 3 modules, and we won't maintain tauthon modules or the packaging infrastructure for them". Note: this is a private opinion, not the opinion of DPMT as a whole. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On 2019-09-12 16:22, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Sep 12, Alf Gaida wrote: > >> It doesn't really matter. In fact python2 is dead for years, if we >> start now to make a plan we are years to late. The timeframe is _now:. > Dead for who? As long as somebody will be interested in maintaining > python2 it will not be dead. Agreed. there are already python2 forks such as: https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon It may sound funny but I don't hope any python2 stuff get back with a new name after the python2 removal. But, it could happen if some people is willing to support and maintain... How should Debian react if someone submitted an ITP for python2 forks, such as the tauthon above?
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On Sep 12, Alf Gaida wrote: > It doesn't really matter. In fact python2 is dead for years, if we > start now to make a plan we are years to late. The timeframe is _now:. Dead for who? As long as somebody will be interested in maintaining python2 it will not be dead. I maintain some packages which have been abandoned by their upstream maintainers 20 years ago and they are fine. I am not a python users, but as long as somebody will continue to maintain it in Debian we have no reason to remove it no matter what the upstream maintainers would like. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
Hi, On 12-09-2019 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote: > But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early. Yes, not on the front page, but there is (first bullet): https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#deprecated-components Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 16:01:54 +0100 Ian Jackson wrote: > That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of > 2020. Have we in fact made such a pledge ? I think I may have missed > the memo that python2 would be removed from bullseye. > ""He's dead, Jim" (Doctor Leonard McCoy) > I did some searching and found this > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html > which is a sane-looking transition plan but doesn't seem to have a > timeframe and doesn't seem to contemplate removal of the actual > python2 interpreter. It doesn't really matter. In fact python2 is dead for years, if we start now to make a plan we are years to late. The timeframe is _now:. > FTAOD I don't have an opinion about whether bullseye *should* ship > without python2. Obviously dropping it would not be desirable from > users' pov, but maintaining an ancient thing by ourselves would not be > desirable either. I think I trust the Debian Python team to make that > tradeoff. I have an opinion. If we define stable following Jack Cohen, python2 can stay forever - if you forgOt: There's this special biologist word we use for "stable". It's "dead". ~ Jack Cohen > But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early. If > python2 is going out of bullseye then there are a lot of bugs that > should probably be marked rc fairly soon... We can't do better now - planning of the removal and preparation for would been a task for the buster release cycle - this chance is gone. But is is no reason to remove dead things now. And the last reminder is the python clock: Let me copy and paste the content of https://pythonclock.org/ at the time of writing: > Hell, yes, Python 2.7 will retire in... > 0 > Years > 3 > Months > 19 > Days > 4 > Hours > 59 > Minutes > 44 > Seconds > > > What's all this, then? > Python 2.7 will not be maintained past 2020. Originally, there was no > official date. Recently, that date has been updated to January 1, > 2020. > This clock has been updated accordingly. My original idea was to throw > a Python 2 Celebration of Life party at PyCon 2020, to celebrate > everything Python 2 did for us. That idea still stands. (If this > sounds > interesting to you, email pythonclock...@gmail.com). > > Python 2, thank you for your years of faithful service. > > Python 3, your time is now. > > How do I get started? > If the code you care about is still on Python 2, that's totally > understandable. Most of PyPI's popular packages now work on Python 2 > and 3, and more are being added every day. Additionally, a number of > critical Python projects have pledged to stop supporting Python 2 > soon. > To ease the transition, the official porting guide has advice for > running Python 2 code in Python 3. > Only another harsh comment: So what do you expect - i kown this page from the beginning. If it is surprising for the Debian project that these guys are serious about it we really should adjust the perception of the environment around us. I for myself have two important python2 projects that are not migrated right now - and i will migrate them if really needed because it is no fun to do so - so it depends on Debian - but i'm dead without both projects, so i'm in fact prepared, only to lazy to do it now. > thanks, > Ian. > Cheers Alf -- Alf Gaida BDBF C688 EFAD BA89 5A9F 464B CD28 0A0B 4D72 827C
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On 12.09.19 17:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
Drew Parsons writes ("should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org
?"):
https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which
are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only.
That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of
2020. Have we in fact made such a pledge ? I think I may have missed
the memo that python2 would be removed from bullseye.
I did some searching and found this
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html
which is a sane-looking transition plan but doesn't seem to have a
timeframe and doesn't seem to contemplate removal of the actual
python2 interpreter.
FTAOD I don't have an opinion about whether bullseye *should* ship
without python2. Obviously dropping it would not be desirable from
users' pov, but maintaining an ancient thing by ourselves would not be
desirable either. I think I trust the Debian Python team to make that
tradeoff.
But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early. If
python2 is going out of bullseye then there are a lot of bugs that
should probably be marked rc fairly soon...
it's communicated here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=py2removal;users=debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
derived from
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python2-rm.html (not perfect, we are
still missing bug reports).
it's way too early to mark all of these as RC.
No, it's not yet decided if Python2 will be part of bullseye. But the python
command and the unversioned python packages won't be part of bullseye.
thanks,
Ian.
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
Hi Drew, https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python2-rm.html Given the current progress it looks not easy to make a promise. If some upstream happen to lag behind the schedule of python3 migration, we'll just stuck there for a while. On 2019-09-12 14:46, Drew Parsons wrote: > https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which > are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only. > > The site is designed for python packages specifically, to have only > Python3 supported by end of 2020. > > But it seems to me it would be in the spirit of the site to add > Debian's pledge to remove Python2 (we are currently in the middle of > doing just that). > > Is this a thing that we want to do as a project, to add Debian to > https://python3statement.org/ ? > > Drew
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 16:14 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jim Popovitch writes ("Re: should Debian add itself to
> https://python3statement.org ?"):
> > On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 16:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Drew Parsons writes ("should Debian add itself to
> > > https://python3statement.org ?"):
> > > > https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which
> > > > are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only.
> > >
> > > That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of
> > > 2020.
> >
> > FWIW, that proposed ending date is 2020-01-01, ~110 days from now.
>
> It says
>
> | the following projects have pledged to drop support for Python 2.7
> | no later than 2020, coinciding with the Python development team's
> | timeline for dropping support for Python 2.7.
>
> which is rather ambiguous.
I agree, that site seems, by-design, to avoid the obvious issue that the
Python Developers have stated (in lots of places) that they will stop
supporting Python 2x on 2020-01-10 (search for "python2 eol")
> If we do interpret it to mean 2020-01-01, I doubt there is any
> realistic chance of us making that, even if we decide we want to.
I agree, it's a time waster to even try. The issue really comes down
to: will DDs support python2 security releases through bullseye's eol.
-Jim P.
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
Jim Popovitch writes ("Re: should Debian add itself to
https://python3statement.org ?"):
> On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 16:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Drew Parsons writes ("should Debian add itself to
> > https://python3statement.org ?"):
> > > https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which
> > > are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only.
> >
> > That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of
> > 2020.
>
> FWIW, that proposed ending date is 2020-01-01, ~110 days from now.
It says
| the following projects have pledged to drop support for Python 2.7
| no later than 2020, coinciding with the Python development team's
| timeline for dropping support for Python 2.7.
which is rather ambiguous.
If we do interpret it to mean 2020-01-01, I doubt there is any
realistic chance of us making that, even if we decide we want to.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 16:01 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Drew Parsons writes ("should Debian add itself to
> https://python3statement.org ?"):
> > https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which
> > are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only.
>
> That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of
> 2020.
FWIW, that proposed ending date is 2020-01-01, ~110 days from now.
-Jim P.
Re: should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org ?
Drew Parsons writes ("should Debian add itself to https://python3statement.org
?"):
> https://python3statement.org/ is a site documenting the projects which
> are supporting the policy of dropping Python2 to keep Python3 only.
That statement is a *pledge* to drop support for python2 by the end of
2020. Have we in fact made such a pledge ? I think I may have missed
the memo that python2 would be removed from bullseye.
I did some searching and found this
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html
which is a sane-looking transition plan but doesn't seem to have a
timeframe and doesn't seem to contemplate removal of the actual
python2 interpreter.
FTAOD I don't have an opinion about whether bullseye *should* ship
without python2. Obviously dropping it would not be desirable from
users' pov, but maintaining an ancient thing by ourselves would not be
desirable either. I think I trust the Debian Python team to make that
tradeoff.
But we need to be clear what's going on and communicate early. If
python2 is going out of bullseye then there are a lot of bugs that
should probably be marked rc fairly soon...
thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
