The release cut date for 2.24 is in a couple of weeks; if this is the last release supporting 2.7 we should make the call and announce it soon.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 2:26 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > Note that just because Beam drops 2.x support in new releases doesn't > mean that the old releases won't continue to work. One can even use an > expansion service to run 2.x transforms (on an older version of Beam) > within a Python 3 pipeline running the newest version of Beam until > such a time that (possibly incrementally) the dependent libraries > catch up, if it comes to that. Not that this will be ideal. > > Now that the 2.23 release branch has been cut, we *could* remove 2.7 > support if we will actually plan to remove it in 2.24. (One concern, > however, is how tied the release testing infrastructure is to > mainline...) However, other than Chad's response (the VFX / Animation > isn't quite there yet) it seems we still don't have a very strong > signal either direction. Pypi downloads are still hovering around 50%. > Did we hear anything back from twitter/slack? > > My inclination would be to publish loudly that 2.24 would be the last > Beam to support Python 2.7 (this is pushing it back one release), so > if you're still stuck on it make sure it has everything you need by > the release cut date (which is still in the future). > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 9:52 AM David Yan <david...@google.com> wrote: > > > > +1 for removing Python 2.7 support sooner than later. > > > > I recently added a small feature in Beam Python and I found that having > to write code that worked with Python2 was quite awkward and time consuming > (needing to make sure code works for both 2 and 3 and doubling the Jenkins > running time), and I can imagine that may hinder or even discourage new > contributions. > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:12 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> Good to hear from you and good to hear the news. Release branch cut > date for 2.24 is 8/12. > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:01 PM Chad Dombrova <chad...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> Sorry I've been AWOL. I've been pulled in a number of different > directions. > >>> > >>> We are still increasing our use of Beam, and I have it on my todo list > to reach out to Kenneth about how Beam could be expanded into the VFX / > Animation industries. > >>> > >>> Our industry uses a number of specialized applications with embedded > python interpreters. We run Beam inside these interpreters, so we're > waiting for them to switch to python3. > >>> > >>> Here's the status report for python3 adoption in our key applications: > >>> > >>> Maya: In Beta > >>> Houdini: Released > >>> Nuke: In Beta > >>> Katana: Not started (Alpha?) > >>> > >>> I hate to be the one holding the project back, and I understand if you > all ultimately decide it's untenable to wait any longer. The good news is > 3 out of 4 applications should be ready in the next 2-3 months. I can do > some investigation into what workarounds might look like for Katana, or > maybe we can use the Beta version once python3 support arrives, which would > move our schedule forward. > >>> > >>> When would 2.24 release? > >>> > >>> -chad > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:33 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> OK, tweeted the message. Could you share on Slack? > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:28 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Alright, let's publish the message on Twitter and echo on Slack once > that's done. > >>>>> Thank you! > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:31 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. >
