I agree with having low-frequency tests for low-priority versions. Low-priority versions could be determined according to least usage.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 4:06 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Are these divergent enough that they all need to consume testing > resources? For example can lower priority versions be daily runs or some > such? > > For the 3.x series, I think we will get the most signal out of the > lowest and highest version, and can get by with smoke tests + > infrequent post-commits for the ones between. > > > Kenn > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:25 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 to consulting users. Currently 3.5 downloads sit at 3.7%, or about > >> 20% of all Python 3 downloads. > >> > >> I would propose getting in warnings about 3.5 EoL well ahead of time, > >> at the very least as part of the 2.7 warning. > >> > >> Fortunately, supporting multiple 3.x versions is significantly easier > >> than spanning 2.7 and 3.x. I would rather not impose an ordering on > >> dropping 3.5 and adding 3.8 but consider their merits independently. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kyle Weaver <kcwea...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > 5 versions is too many IMO. We've had issues with Python precommit > resource usage in the past, and adding another version would surely > exacerbate those issues. And we have also already had to leave out certain > features on 3.5 [1]. Therefore, I am in favor of dropping 3.5 before adding > 3.8. After dropping Python 2 and adding 3.8, that will leave us with the > latest three minor versions (3.6, 3.7, 3.8), which I think is closer to the > "sweet spot." Though I would be interested in hearing if there are any > users who would prefer we continue supporting 3.5. > >> > > >> > [1] > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/8658b95545352e51f35959f38334f3c7df8b48eb/sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/portability/flink_runner.py#L55 > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:00 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I would like to start a discussion about identifying a guideline for > answering questions like: > >> >> > >> >> 1. When will Beam support a new Python version (say, Python 3.8)? > >> >> 2. When will Beam drop support for an old Python version (say, > Python 3.5)? > >> >> 3. How many Python versions should we aim to support concurrently > (investigate issues, have continuous integration tests)? > >> >> 4. What comes first: adding support for a new version (3.8) or > deprecating older one (3.5)? This may affect the max load our test > infrastructure needs to sustain. > >> >> > >> >> We are already getting requests for supporting Python 3.8 and there > were some good reasons[1] to drop support for Python 3.5 (at least, early > versions of 3.5). Answering these questions would help set expectations in > Beam user community, Beam dev community, and may help us establish > resource requirements for test infrastructure and plan efforts. > >> >> > >> >> PEP-0602 [2] establishes a yearly release cycle for Python versions > starting from 3.9. Each release is a long-term support release and is > supported for 5 years: first 1.5 years allow for general bug fix support, > remaining 3.5 years have security fix support. > >> >> > >> >> At every point, there may be up to 5 Python minor versions that did > not yet reach EOL, see "Release overlap with 12 month diagram" [3]. We can > try to support all of them, but that may come at a cost of velocity: we > will have more tests to maintain, and we will have to develop Beam against > a lower version for a longer period. Supporting less versions will have > implications for user experience. It also may be difficult to ensure > support of the most recent version early, since our dependencies (e.g. > picklers) may not be supporting them yet. > >> >> > >> >> Currently we support 4 Python versions (2.7, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7). > >> >> > >> >> Is 4 versions a sweet spot? Too much? Too little? What do you think? > >> >> > >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10821#issuecomment-590167711 > >> >> [2] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0602/ > >> >> [3] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0602/#id17 >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
