pandas has already dropped 3.6 support in our coming 1.2 release (nov 2020); 1.1.x supports 3.6
> On Nov 1, 2020, at 9:04 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 6:48 PM Mark Harfouche <mark.harfou...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >>> Do you think the proposal is not in compliance? There is no requirement >>> that we drop anything more than 42 months old, it is just recommended. The >>> change in the Python release cycle has created some difficulty. With the >>> yearly cycle, 4 python yearly releases will cover 3-4 years, which seems >>> reasonable and we can probably drop to 3 releases towards the end, but with >>> 3.7 coming 18 months after 3.6, four releases is on the long side, and >>> three releases on the short side, so keeping 3.6 is the conservative >>> choice. Once the yearly cycle sets in I think we will be fine. >>> >>> Chuck >> >> I believe that it really helps to "lead by example". >> >> I don't mean to reference threads that you have all participated in, but the >> discussion in: >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2020-August/024336.html >> >> Makes it clear to me at least, that downstream will follow the example that >> numpy sets. >> >> At the time of writing, it was anticipated that Python 3.7, 3.8, and maybe >> 3.9 would exist in Nov 1st. >> The support table >> https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0029-deprecation_policy.html#support-table >> suggests that any release July 23 should only support 3.7. >> >> Barring COVID delays, it seems natural that in Nov 2020, support for Python >> 3.6 be dropped or that the NEP be revised. >> >> These decisions are hard, and take up alot of mental capacity, if the >> support window needs revisiting, that is fine, it just really helps to be >> able to point to a document (which is what NEP29 seemed to do). >> > > The problem is that if we drop 3.6 the oldest version of Python will only be > 30 months old, not 36. Dropping 3.6 for 1.20.x will make it 36 months, which > is the recommended minimum coverage. I made sure that the language did not > preclude longer support periods in any case. > > It would be helpful here if more people would comment, I would be happy to go > with the shorter period if a majority of downstream projects want to go that > way. It's not that I love 3.6, but there is no compelling reason to drop it, > as there was for 3.5, at least that I am aware of. > > Chuck > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
