+1 On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:27 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote:
> As a concrete proposal, could we commit to removing python 2 support by > 2.24? In other words, mark the next release 2.23 as the last python 2 > compatible Beam version. > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:09 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> > wrote: > >> Another input here: >> >> If you opened a Python PR in the last few days, you probably noticed that >> our test suites were broken by a transitive dependency of Beam that dropped >> python 2 support, but did not declare python_requires>=3 in its setup.py >> [1]. This temporarily broke a subset of Beam Py2 users (who did not >> explicitly pin the 'rsa' dependency), and still affects Beam >> development[2]. >> >> This is the second time[3] Beam is affected with an issue of this kind, >> so support of Python 2 starts to slow down our development, and add toil >> for maintainers of packages we depend on (both directly and transitively). >> >> [1] https://github.com/sybrenstuvel/python-rsa/issues/152 >> [2] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9993b40b0c1cb8682ce56013165d4b80fdde0ee469a73bcb9466ddfb%40%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E >> [3] https://github.com/hamcrest/PyHamcrest/issues/131 >> >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:06 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for re-opening this Valentyn. I am in favor of EOLing py2 >>> support sooner than later. The reality is that we will not be effectively >>> supporting beam python 2 for a long time while the ecosystem already EOLed >>> python 2. That said, a significant chunk (but no longer a majority) of our >>> users are still using python 2. Upgrades are painful, it might be >>> especially painful nowadays. It would be good to hear counter view points, >>> user voices related to this. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:53 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Back at the end of February we decided to revisit this conversation in >>>> 3 months. Do folks on this thread have any new input or perspective >>>> regarding us balancing "user pain/contributor pain/our ability to >>>> continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment"? >>>> >>>> Some new information on my end is that we have been seeing steady >>>> adoption of Python 3 among Beam Python users in Dataflow, particularly >>>> strong adoption among streaming users, and Dataflow is sunsetting Python 2 >>>> support for all released Beam SDKs later this year [1]. We will have to >>>> remove Python 2 Beam test suites that use Dataflow when Dataflow runner >>>> disables Py2 support if this happens before Beam Py2 EOL (when we have to >>>> remove all Py2 suites), including performance tests that still use Dataflow >>>> on Python 3. >>>> >>>> I am curious how much motivation there is in the community at this >>>> moment to continue Py2 support in Beam, whether any previous Py3 migration >>>> blockers were resolved or any new blockers discovered among Beam users. >>>> >>>> [1] https://cloud.google.com/python/docs/python2-sunset/#dataflow >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:52 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> That's good news! Thanks for sharing. >>>>> >>>>> Another datapoint, here are a few of Beam's dependencies that no >>>>> longer release new py2 artifacts (I looked at REQUIRED_PACKAGES + aws, >>>>> gcp, and interactive extras): >>>>> >>>>> hdfs >>>>> numpy >>>>> pyarrow >>>>> ipython >>>>> >>>>> There are more if we include transitive dependencies and test-only >>>>> packages. I also remember encountering one issue last month that was >>>>> broken >>>>> only on Py2, which we had to go back and fix. >>>>> >>>>> If others have noticed frictions related to ongoing Py2 support or >>>>> have updates on previously mentioned Py3 migration blockers, feel free to >>>>> post them. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:19 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It hasn't been 3 months yet, but I wanted to call out a milestone that >>>>>> Python 3 downloads crossed the 50% threshold on pypi, if just briefly. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:40 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > I would suggest re-evaluating this within the next 3 months >>>>>> again. We need to balance between user pain/contributor pain/our ability >>>>>> to >>>>>> continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Good idea for the in 3 months evaluation, at that point also >>>>>> distributions will probably be phasing out python2 by default which >>>>>> definitely help in this direction. >>>>>> > Thanks for updating the roadmap Ahmet >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:49 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:29 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I am with Chad on this, we should probably extend it a bit more, >>>>>> even if it >>>>>> >>> makes us struggle a bit at least we have some workarounds as >>>>>> Robert suggests, >>>>>> >>> and as Chad said there are still many people playing the python 3 >>>>>> catchup game, >>>>>> >>> so worth to support those users. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> But maybe it is worth to evaluate the current state later in the >>>>>> year. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I would suggest re-evaluating this within the next 3 months again. >>>>>> We need to balance between user pain/contributor pain/our ability to >>>>>> continuously test with python 2 in a shifting environment. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> In the >>>>>> >>> meantime can someone please update our Roadmap in the website >>>>>> with this info and >>>>>> >>> where we are with Python 3 support (it looks not up to date). >>>>>> >>> https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/ >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I made a minor change to update that page ( >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/10848). A more comprehensive >>>>>> update to that page and linked ( >>>>>> https://beam.apache.org/roadmap/python-sdk/#python-3-support) would >>>>>> still be welcome. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> - Ismaël >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:49 PM Robert Bradshaw < >>>>>> rober...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:12 PM Chad Dombrova < >>>>>> chad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> Not to mention that all the nice work for the type hints >>>>>> will have to be redone in the for 3.x. >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > Note that there's a tool for automatically converting type >>>>>> comments to annotations: https://github.com/ilevkivskyi/com2ann >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > So don't let that part bother you. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> +1, I wouldn't worry about what can be easily automated. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> > I'm curious what other features you'd like to be using in the >>>>>> Beam source that you cannot now. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I hit things occasionally, e.g. I just ran into wanting >>>>>> keyword-only >>>>>> >>>> arguments the other day. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> It seems the faster we drop support the better. >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >>>> > I've already gone over my position on this, but a refresher >>>>>> for those who care: some of the key vendors that support my industry >>>>>> will >>>>>> not offer python3-compatible versions of their software until the 4th >>>>>> quarter of 2020. If Beam switches to python3-only before that point we >>>>>> may >>>>>> be forced to stop contributing features (note: I'm the guy who added the >>>>>> type hints :). Every month you can give us would be greatly >>>>>> appreciated. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> As another data point, we're still 80/20 on Py2/Py3 for >>>>>> downloads at >>>>>> >>>> PyPi [1] (which I've heard should be taken with a grain of salt, >>>>>> but >>>>>> >>>> likely isn't totally off). IMHO that ratio needs to be way >>>>>> higher for >>>>>> >>>> Python 3 to consider dropping Python 2. It's pretty noisy, but >>>>>> say it >>>>>> >>>> doubles every 3 months that would put us at least mid-year >>>>>> before we >>>>>> >>>> hit a cross-over point. On the other hand Q4 2020 is probably a >>>>>> >>>> stretch. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> We could consider whether it needs to be an all-or-nothing thing >>>>>> as >>>>>> >>>> well. E.g. perhaps some features could be Python 3 only sooner >>>>>> than >>>>>> >>>> the whole codebase. (This would have to be well justified.) >>>>>> Another >>>>>> >>>> mitigation is that it is possible to mix Python 2 and Python 3 >>>>>> in the >>>>>> >>>> same pipeline with portability, so if there's a library that you >>>>>> need >>>>>> >>>> for one DoFn it doesn't mean you have to hold back your whole >>>>>> >>>> pipeline. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> - Robert >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> [1] https://pypistats.org/packages/apache-beam , and that 20% >>>>>> may just >>>>>> >>>> be a spike. >>>>>> >>>>>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
