On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 12:07 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 30 June 2017 at 09:24, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
> >
> > AW> Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all
> > AW> the trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo'
> > AW> meaning 'the Python 2 module called foo' to meaning 'the
Python 3
> > AW> module called foo'?
> >
> > It's about users. Once "python" means python3 (which is a
decision that
> > the python upstream will eventually make), a user should be getting a
> > python3 version when they type "dnf install python-foo".
> >
> > Packages should of course always specify the version and should never
> > use python-* for anything unless there is no alternative. (Which is the
> > what the current packaging guidelines state.)
>
> That seems like, frankly, quite a weak justification for all the
> trouble that's involved in migrating the 'meaning' of python-foo like
> this (and, as Smooge pointed out, potentially doing it *again* for
> Python 4, if it ever happens).
FWIW, our current expectation upstream is that the release after
Python 3.9 will be Python 3.10 (Guido overcame his historical aversion
to 2-digit version segments around the time that 2.7.10 became a
necessity).
Even if a 4.0 does happen, the magnitude of the change relative to the
preceding 3.x release is expected to be comparable to that between any
given 3.x and 3.x+1 release, so it wouldn't require the parallel stack
approach that has proven necessary to handle the core data model
changes that impacted the 2->3 transition.
I thought it would be tolerably obvious that I didn't mean "literally
the specific conceptual Python 4.0 that at one point was expected to
exist after 3.9" or "any specific Python 4 release that happens".
Clearly what I meant was "any future non-backwards-compatible major
Python release". Maybe *right now* you don't expect there to be one,
but I'm sure there was probably a point during Python 1's lifetime at
which no-one expected there to be a backwards-incompatible Python 2,
and a point during Python 2's lifetime at which no-one expected there
to be a backwards-incompatible Python 3...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net