[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:36 AM Brett Cannon wrote: > > Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a > > useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that > > because the function in question cannot be removed (because of backwards > > compatibility). See https://bugs.python.org/issue29548... for an > > example. > > We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated > > in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. > > Do we have that officially written down anywhere? The closest I know is > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0387/ but that PEP is still a draft. > > And for me the "official" policy is if you deprecate in N you can remove in > N+1, not N+2. (But all of this is a bit wonky with Python 2.7 still being > alive and not being able to remove anything from the stdlib unless it's > severely broken until 2.7 hits EOL). > See also https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/thread/ZUKVACWVX7SQEA7FGZRXALR7PWCLV7K6/ Some things changed since that thread, but some points are still valid. > > That's a reasonable > > policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY) > > be removed in version N+2. Following this reasoning, we cannot deprecate > > something that we cannot remove. > > Personally, I think that this reasoning is flawed: even if we cannot > > remove a function, we can still deprecate it. That way, we send a > > message that the function shouldn't be used anymore. And it makes it > > easier to remove it in the (far) future: if the function was deprecated > > for a while, we have a valid reason to remove it. The longer it was > > deprecated, the less likely it is to be still used, which makes it > > easier to remove eventually. > > So I suggest to embrace such long-term deprecations, where we deprecate > > something without planning in advance when it will be removed. This is > > actually how most other open source projects that I know handle > > deprecations. > > I'd like to know the opinion of the Python core devs here. > > I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people always want to update code > even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure people who don't read the > docs but discover something via the REPL or something and don't run with > warnings on do not accidentally come to rely on something that's deprecated. > ___ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PRI2O6G6O6HUVGXD3W2MSCEF4JTW36IB/ ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GQDFRX3K6DIWYSRZNAW2AIOUCGHSZWA4/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2019-07-17 02:34, Brett Cannon wrote: > > I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people > > always want to update code even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure > > people who > > don't read the docs but discover something via the REPL or something and > > don't run with > > warnings on do not accidentally come to rely on something that's deprecated. > > I see what you mean but it doesn't really answer my question. > I was asking about a scenario where you plan on purpose a long > deprecation period because you know in advance that you cannot remove > the functionality soon (because of PEP 384 or because it's used a lot, > for example collections ABCs). Sorry, I misread the question you were asking. Yes, I agree that even if you can't remove something for a while you should still deprecate it. ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/265QKTU3MDYMDZQ6MHZRPTELSZFURU46/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:07 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2019-07-16 15:33, Inada Naoki wrote: > >> We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated > >> in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. That's a reasonable > >> policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY) > >> be removed in version N+2. Following this reasoning, we cannot deprecate > >> something that we cannot remove. > > > > Really? Any example? > > * https://bugs.python.org/issue29548#msg287775 > OK, Stable ABI was special. We can not remove it until Python 4 regarding to PEP 384. In 2017, Python 4 was looked like "forever". But for now, we should think Python 4 is the real future in 2020s, not 3000 or 4000. I think we should deprecate APIs in stable API like non-stable API if we want to remove it after Python 4.0. -- Inada Naoki ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/WR4SE2GFZHW2CFD6C7Z4BI7A2FWK5SMQ/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
On 2019-07-17 02:34, Brett Cannon wrote: I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people always want to update code even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure people who don't read the docs but discover something via the REPL or something and don't run with warnings on do not accidentally come to rely on something that's deprecated. I see what you mean but it doesn't really answer my question. I was asking about a scenario where you plan on purpose a long deprecation period because you know in advance that you cannot remove the functionality soon (because of PEP 384 or because it's used a lot, for example collections ABCs). ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/GLFWX7QJ7WKNHHWXJEXMJI5JDCTIGODF/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a > useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that > because the function in question cannot be removed (because of backwards > compatibility). See https://bugs.python.org/issue29548... for an > example. > We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated > in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. Do we have that officially written down anywhere? The closest I know is https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0387/ but that PEP is still a draft. And for me the "official" policy is if you deprecate in N you can remove in N+1, not N+2. (But all of this is a bit wonky with Python 2.7 still being alive and not being able to remove anything from the stdlib unless it's severely broken until 2.7 hits EOL). > That's a reasonable > policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY) > be removed in version N+2. Following this reasoning, we cannot deprecate > something that we cannot remove. > Personally, I think that this reasoning is flawed: even if we cannot > remove a function, we can still deprecate it. That way, we send a > message that the function shouldn't be used anymore. And it makes it > easier to remove it in the (far) future: if the function was deprecated > for a while, we have a valid reason to remove it. The longer it was > deprecated, the less likely it is to be still used, which makes it > easier to remove eventually. > So I suggest to embrace such long-term deprecations, where we deprecate > something without planning in advance when it will be removed. This is > actually how most other open source projects that I know handle > deprecations. > I'd like to know the opinion of the Python core devs here. I prefer removal for ease of maintenance (people always want to update code even if it's deprecated), and to help make sure people who don't read the docs but discover something via the REPL or something and don't run with warnings on do not accidentally come to rely on something that's deprecated. ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PRI2O6G6O6HUVGXD3W2MSCEF4JTW36IB/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
On 2019-07-16 15:33, Inada Naoki wrote: We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. That's a reasonable policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY) be removed in version N+2. Following this reasoning, we cannot deprecate something that we cannot remove. Really? Any example? * https://bugs.python.org/issue29548#msg287775 * https://discuss.python.org/t/pendingdeprecationwarning-is-really-useful/1038/10 and following ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/QUPCYUHYAY5UX7NIBGJ5FVY5EHHIK442/
[Python-Dev] Re: Long-term deprecation policy
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:46 PM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I have seen multiple discussions where somebody wants to deprecate a > useless function but somebody else complains that we cannot do that > because the function in question cannot be removed (because of backwards > compatibility). See https://bugs.python.org/issue29548 for an example. > FWIW, we didn't have deprecated macro in 2017. Now we have it and I'm +1 to deprecate it. Especially, I want to force Py_SSIZE_T_CLEAN support (remove int support for #) in early 2020s (3.10, or 3.11). But PyEval_CallFunction and PyEval_CallMethod doesn't respect Py_SSIZE_T_CLEAN. We need breaking behavior change for them. And we raise runtime deprecation warning already. I think we should add compile time warning too, regardless # is used or not. > We currently have a deprecation policy saying that functions deprecated > in version N cannot be removed before version N+2. That's a reasonable > policy but some deprecation purists insist that it MUST (instead of MAY) > be removed in version N+2. Following this reasoning, we cannot deprecate > something that we cannot remove. Really? Any example? > > Personally, I think that this reasoning is flawed: even if we cannot > *remove* a function, we can still *deprecate* it. I totally agree with you. Nothing wrong about long deprecation period. > That way, we send a > message that the function shouldn't be used anymore. And it makes it > easier to remove it in the (far) future: if the function was deprecated > for a while, we have a valid reason to remove it. The longer it was > deprecated, the less likely it is to be still used, which makes it > easier to remove eventually. > > So I suggest to embrace such long-term deprecations, where we deprecate > something without planning in advance when it will be removed. This is > actually how most other open source projects that I know handle > deprecations. > > I'd like to know the opinion of the Python core devs here. > FWIW, there is PendingDeprecationWarning for something discouraged but not deprecated, and will be deprecated in the future. But I prefer simple deprecation. Regards, -- Inada Naoki ___ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/4KDQ3QNO4YL6FWX6Q6YQVKPINJ7QK2DG/
