Hello friends! It's been a couple years since the below chat, but I'm finally at the point where pulling 'fabric3' back into Fabric's 1.x branch is blocking my other plans (namely dropping Python 2 support everywhere else). As I didn't find any actual PR filed about this, I just soldiered ahead, since it shouldn't be all that much work (famous last words).
What I've done so far: - Made sure I could still test Fabric-primary's "v1" branch under Python 2 in a Docker image. Still works! Mostly. Had to post a tiny test-only fix. - Made sure the tests passed under Mathias' master branch on Py2+Py3(.6). Again, mostly! Another test-only fix got us to 100%. - Merged the head of v1 (which as noted earlier, was just some bits n bobs from 1.14.1 release) into my copy of Mathias' branch. Still good. - Gave the result a little CircleCI config since it only takes a couple minutes and would be a nice "proof of work" besides "works on my machine". - Note that as with my other projects and Fab 2.x, CircleCI only does Python 3 - not Python 2. But I don't think anybody was TOO worried about the stability of this line on Python 2... - https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/fabric/fabric/118/workflows/ea65458b-ccf7-40b0-9b8b-d7107001fbc4 - Early steps here helped me discover a Python 3.9 compat issue (think because they axed the old _dummy_thread allowing 'import thread' to work) in a test dependency (fudge) - it doesn't look easily worked around - but as it's a test-only dep, I am currently happy just saying "test on 3.6-3.8", esp since I don't exactly expect us to post many commits to this line going forwards! For ease of viewing (the compare-only page seems a bit "off", eg doesn't show my recent commits) I made this PR: https://github.com/fabric/fabric/pull/2205 but I'm expecting to just merge & release it as v1.15 (likely this coming Friday-ish) unless somebody points out a Serious Problemâ„¢ I'm not seeing. Let me know what y'all think! Kindly yours, 7 years after the fork, Jeff On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:16 PM Mathias Ertl <m...@er.tl> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > On 6/15/20 9:40 PM, Jeff Forcier wrote: > > I am definitely willing to merge PRs that add Python 3 compatibility, > > That's *really* great news. Thanks! > > > though my assumption was that we'd do it as a single PR that > > approximates the diff between the official repo's v1 branch, and > > fabric3, and treat it in the changelog/messaging as "were you using > > fabric3 from PyPI? Fabric 1.15 is now effectively the same thing! come > > on back!!" > > > > Were you intending to follow some other multi-step process or are we in > > alignment here? Open to whatever, as long as there's a good rationale. > > Well, I'm a bit split: > > On the one hand, I just cloned my fork again and ran the test suite with > Python 3.8.3. Only one test fails > (test_network.TestNetwork.test_connect_does_not_prompt_password_when_ssh_raises_channel_exception), > and that error seems fixable. So we could do just what you're saying. > > On the other hand, Fabric3 did see some usage, but certainly not as much > as it should. Some parts I used at work, but definitely not all of them. > My experience from porting software like this to Python3 is to take it > slow: First fix syntax errors, then fix obvious problems that don't > break compatibility (e.g. imports via six) and so on. > > The advantage of the latter approach is that we have some way cleaner > commits and PRs where we can make sure that we don't break anything. > > So in any case let me know what you want :-) > > Mat > > > > > > > FYI: I've been intending to migrate our CI from Travis to Circle, which > > may play into the timing of this; however I'll likely only allow that to > > block the merge if the Travis env is broken and needs nontrivial fixes > > (as it seems a waste to spend more time on Travis if I am planning to > > leave). I am /hoping/ to look at that this week. > > > > Thanks, > > Jeff > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:32 PM Mathias Ertl <m...@er.tl > > <mailto:m...@er.tl>> wrote: > > > > Hi Jeff + mailing list, > > > > This thread unfortunately did not have a follow up that I can see, so > > whats up with making Fabric 1.x Py3 compatible? > > > > If I get a statement from you that you're willing to merge PRs that > > start with py3 compatibility, I'm willing to start working on this, or > > of course maybe za3k wants to work with this, I'm willing to help him > > get started (I have ported many older Py2 projects to py3 at my old > > job). > > > > > > Mat > > > > On 5/27/20 5:50 PM, Jeff Forcier wrote: > > > Hi all, and thanks for putting this together, Zachary. > > > > > > Just to chip in with my own context: > > > > > > - I'd been pondering making this connection myself lately (due to > > the > > > delays in getting Fabric 2 to parity and now Python 2's official > > EOL). Hi! > > > - Fabric 1.15 was IIRC a single small feature-add, so if there > > are no > > > big changes on the fork besides just the Python 3 compatibility, > > > unifying them should still be relatively easy, mechanically speaking. > > > - As stated earlier on the list, my main concern with the Py3 > > compat is > > > that Fabric 1's test suite doesn't have as high a % coverage as > > I'd like > > > (one of many impetuses for v2) but at this point I'm guessing > > fabric3's > > > usage has been widespread enough, for long enough, that any > > serious bugs > > > have already been found. > > > - Curious what, if any, you ran into though - Paramiko went > > through > > > quite a lot of instability in its own Py3 journey... > > > - Re: the fabric3 name on pip - no rush on figuring that out, for > > > multiple reasons. > > > - At the VERY least we would need to wait til stats show most > > users > > > of fabric3 had migrated to either post-merge fabric1, or fabric2. > > Not in > > > a rush to pull the rug out from under anyone. > > > - I'm hoping that Fabric 3.x, 4.x etc will be non full > > rewrites and > > > thus there will be no need for in place side by side upgrades - > > which > > > was the only real reason to even need a 'fabric2' on pypi (and, > > thus, > > > ever a mainstream 'fabric3') > > > - By the time we get there I'd mostly be concerned about user > > > confusion (intending to get 'fabric==3.x' but installing 'fabric3' > > > instead) but that is likely a ways off! > > > > > > Best, > > > Jeff > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:02 PM <z...@za3k.com > > <mailto:z...@za3k.com> <mailto:z...@za3k.com <mailto:z...@za3k.com>>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi / tag Matthias! I've been talking to the fabric mailing > > list (cc'd) > > > and the fabric developer bitprophet (cc'd). The subject is adding > > > python3 support to fabric 1.x (even though 2.x is the latest) as > > > part of > > > making an official package. > > > > > > bitprophet, the current state is that this is forked off > > 1.14.0, only > > > one version behind the latest, and I see no feature additions or > > > changes. It's been marked DEPRECATED for a year because 2.x added > > > python3 support. > > > > > > mathiasertl, I'd like to merge your fabric3 work into fabric. No > > > issues, > > > right? > > > > > > Also, bitprophet has mentioned that might be helpful there > > wasn't a > > > pre-existing 'fabric3' pip package out of his control, in case of > > > future > > > difficulty/confusion with a fabric 3.0 release--I'll leave > > ya'll to > > > talk > > > that out. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeff Forcier > > > Unix sysadmin; Python engineer > > > http://bitprophet.org > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Forcier > > Unix sysadmin; Python engineer > > http://bitprophet.org -- Jeff Forcier Unix sysadmin; Python engineer https://bitprophet.org