That sounds reasonable to me. I agree, it is better to get specific reasons rather than a yes/no answer.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:50 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> wrote: > After thinking about it for a bit, I am not sure whether a poll would be > actionable. For example, if 1000 users provide a positive response and 5 > users provide a negative response, how do we interpret that and where do > we draw a line? How about instead we encourage users to reach out, and tell > what is not working for them? For example: > > Beam is considering making 2.23.0 a final release supporting Py2. If you > are not able to switch to Python 3, please let us know why: [short link to > user@ thread] [1]. > > Thoughts? > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0de71d98d98b213dd1d0c45c1f5642135116f25def5637a5f41c8d29%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:38 AM Valentyn Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have reached out to user@ for feedback on Python 3 migration[1]. >>> >> >> Maybe also ask on slack? There are quite a bit of users there as well. >> >> >>> >>> Could somebody from PMC please help with Twitter poll? >>> >> >> I can try to do this. What question would you like to ask? I do not know >> much about twitter polls but I assume they have character limits similar to >> regular tweets. >> >> >>> >>> Technically, we can proceed with the change between 2.23.0 and 2.24.0, >>> so that's after 2.23.0 is cut and we give sufficient time for users to >>> respond. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0de71d98d98b213dd1d0c45c1f5642135116f25def5637a5f41c8d29%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E >>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:22 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes we need to poll this outside as Robert proposed. >>>> >>>> The proposed last support version corresponds with the next release >>>> that will be >>>> cut in two weeks. Sounds a bit short if we count the time to poll >>>> people on this >>>> subject but still could be. >>> >>> Technically, we can proceed with the change between 2.23.0 and 2.24.0, >>> so that's after 2.23.0 is cut and we give sufficient time for users to >>> respond. >>> >>> >>>> I remember Chad mentioned in this thread the impossibility to get >>>> support for >>>> python 2 in his industry until the end of the year, Maybe things have >>>> improved. >>>> Have they? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:10 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I like that option as a concrete proposal. I think we should >>>> circulate it more widely (the users list, twitter poll, at least a new >>>> thread...), maybe phrasing it as "is there any reason you couldn't migrate >>>> to Python 3 (or stick with an older version of Beam) after 2.23 (due to be >>>> cut here in a couple of weeks)?" If there is strong concern/pushback, we >>>> could consider holding on for one more release. >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:54 AM David Cavazos <dcava...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> +1 >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:52 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> +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. >>>> >>>
