Hi all, On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev <grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > > Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version > support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating > language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.
I agree to both: - we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest still supported Python version, - and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion (RFC if needed). I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC. > A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, > with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most > likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC. I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise. > The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could > possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this should > be established likewise with a RFC. > > If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months > to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, > October, in time for the 3.6 retirement. Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion. The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite different and not easy to handle in a single RFC. Just my 0.02 cents, Markus _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
