[google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Jay Kyburz]

Hello Googlers, 

There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how Debian 
has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline in 
2020. 
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502

Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3 
implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5 
years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing. 

5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years of 
using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me. 

I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job. 

If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy to 
contribute.

Jay.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Jeff Schnitzer]

You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience today
does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best course of
action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they work as
well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.

Jeff

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz  wrote:

> Hello Googlers,
>
> There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how Debian
> has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline in
> 2020.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502
>
> Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3
> implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5
> years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing.
>
> 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years of
> using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me.
>
> I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job.
>
> If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy to
> contribute.
>
> Jay.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/CADK-0uhStt%2B7agrX7u8KbExePAyUgWqoDSMjKxqX-RpnqmvFrA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Jay Kyburz]

A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that I'm 
managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere. 

The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to continue to 
work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my applications to 
Python 3. 

My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have to 
go find another solution. 



On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>
> You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience 
> today does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best 
> course of action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they 
> work as well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz  > wrote:
>
>> Hello Googlers, 
>>
>> There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how Debian 
>> has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline in 
>> 2020. 
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502
>>
>> Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3 
>> implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5 
>> years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing. 
>>
>> 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years 
>> of using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me. 
>>
>> I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job. 
>>
>> If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy 
>> to contribute.
>>
>> Jay.
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Google App Engine" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/5b589d0c-4bf1-4a19-830c-f0b68b544764%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[troberti]

Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a replacement 
for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity & 
zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead, 
Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't 
want to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes. 

The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap would 
be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime ready in 
2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python 2 runtime 
in 2020.

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>
> A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that I'm 
> managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere. 
>
> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to continue 
> to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my applications to 
> Python 3. 
>
> My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have to 
> go find another solution. 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>>
>> You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience 
>> today does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best 
>> course of action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they 
>> work as well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Googlers, 
>>>
>>> There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how Debian 
>>> has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline in 
>>> 2020. 
>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502
>>>
>>> Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3 
>>> implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5 
>>> years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing. 
>>>
>>> 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years 
>>> of using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me. 
>>>
>>> I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job. 
>>>
>>> If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy 
>>> to contribute.
>>>
>>> Jay.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Google App Engine" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/8c465186-d499-4df2-abf4-2551e16060eb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Karl MacMillan]

  

> On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti  wrote:
> 
> 
> Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a replacement 
> for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity & 
> zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead, Managed 
> VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't want to 
> 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes. 
> 
> 
> 

I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs are a 
viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at all for me. 
The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty awful, the same set 
of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed VMs, and basically I 
want the zero config of App Engine.


This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing servers - 
it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my time.


> The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap would 
> be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime ready in 
> 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python 2 runtime 
> in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 

+1


Karl


> On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:> A port to 
> a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that I'm managing my 
> own servers and might as well move anywhere. 
>> 
>> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to continue to 
>> work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my applications to 
>> Python 3. 
>> 
>> 
>> My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have to 
>> go find another solution. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:> You can 
>> run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience today does not 
>> compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best course of action is 
>> to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they work as well or better 
>> than what you're used to. More specific is better.
>>> 
>>> Jeff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz >>>wrote:
 Hello Googlers, 
 
 There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how Debian 
 has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline in 
 2020. 
 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502
 
 
 
 
 
 Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3 
 implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5 
 years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing. 
 
 
 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years of 
 using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me. 
 
 
 I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job. 
 
 
 If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy to 
 contribute.
 
 
 Jay.
 
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 "Google App Engine" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com
 
 .
 To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine
 
 .
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
 
 
 
 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
 
 .
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/8c465186-d499-4df2-abf4-2551e16060eb%40googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/BCB5BEF3-E37F-4196-A979-9AB066CE1029%40rakkoon.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Jeff Schnitzer]

I agree with all of you - the Managed VM experience kinda sucks right now
compared to what we're used to. Google will have an easier time making it
better if we file bugs against it the usability issues.

Jeff

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Karl MacMillan  wrote:

>
>  On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti  wrote:
>
> Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a
> replacement for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity
> & zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead,
> Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't
> want to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes.
>
>
> I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs
> are a viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at
> all for me. The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty
> awful, the same set of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed
> VMs, and basically I want the zero config of App Engine.
>
> This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing
> servers - it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my time.
>
>  The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap
> would be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime
> ready in 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python
> 2 runtime in 2020.
>
>
> +1
>
> Karl
>
>  On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>>
>> A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that I'm
>> managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere.
>>
>> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to continue
>> to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my applications to
>> Python 3.
>>
>> My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have
>> to go find another solution.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>>>
>>> You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience
>>> today does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best
>>> course of action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they
>>> work as well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>>>
 Hello Googlers,

 There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how
 Debian has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL deadline
 in 2020.
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502

 Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python 3
 implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 5
 years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing.

 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5 years
 of using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me.

 I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job.

 If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be happy
 to contribute.

 Jay.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Google App Engine" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
 
 .
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/8c465186-d499-4df2-abf4-2551e16060eb%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

['Andrew Jessup' via Google App Engine]

Hey folks, a PM on App Engine here.

The Python 3 question has been top of mind for us - since it's clearly the
future for Python development, and has recently reached a tipping point in
terms of usage. We're not sure at this stage if the best way forward is
with Managed VMs or regular App Engine, and we have a few experiments in
flight right now to figure that out.

What I'm hearing on this thread though is that whatever the Python 3
solution is, it needs to be a lot simpler and less cumbersome than the
Managed VMs experience today, and we agree. We have some parallel work in
flight to dramatically simplify the working with Managed VMs (especially
around the toolchain) and managing applications that we hope to be able to
talk more about soon.

I'd also second Jeff's point above about filing bugs on the usability of
Managed VMs (or even better, star a bug that already exists - generally a
highly starred bug will get worked on quicker than lots of bugs about the
same issue with only a few stars).

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Schnitzer  wrote:

> I agree with all of you - the Managed VM experience kinda sucks right now
> compared to what we're used to. Google will have an easier time making it
> better if we file bugs against it the usability issues.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Karl MacMillan  wrote:
>
>>
>>  On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti  wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a
>> replacement for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity
>> & zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead,
>> Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't
>> want to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes.
>>
>>
>> I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs
>> are a viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at
>> all for me. The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty
>> awful, the same set of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed
>> VMs, and basically I want the zero config of App Engine.
>>
>> This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing
>> servers - it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my time.
>>
>>  The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap
>> would be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime
>> ready in 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python
>> 2 runtime in 2020.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>  On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>>>
>>> A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that
>>> I'm managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to continue
>>> to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my applications to
>>> Python 3.
>>>
>>> My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have
>>> to go find another solution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:

 You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience
 today does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best
 course of action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they
 work as well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.

 Jeff

 On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:19 PM, Jay Kyburz wrote:

> Hello Googlers,
>
> There is an interesting discussion today on Hacker News about how
> Debian has started moving from P2 to P3 because of the looming EOL 
> deadline
> in 2020.
>  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388502
>
> Does anybody know if there are plans in the works to provide a Python
> 3 implementation of App Engine I can port my apps to sometime in the next 
> 5
> years.  I've been searching around but can find nothing.
>
> 5 years may sound like a long time to many of you, but the last 5
> years of using App Engine have seemed to fly by for me.
>
> I have a lot of code to port and it might be a biggish job.
>
> If Google is looking for more staff to handle the port I would be
> happy to contribute.
>
> Jay.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/a336be6a-f0e3-487f-aa4c-36dd8c1117c5%40googlegroups.com
> 

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[troberti]

Thanks for your reply Andrew. This confirms my impression that managed VMs 
are becoming the default 'solution' for things that App Engine can't 
currently do. I understand you can't support every language out there, but 
I want to stress that there should be runtimes that deliver on the core 
premise of App Engine: Providing a service and a set of APIs, and when I 
create a program using those APIs, App Engine keeps it running for decades 
and takes care of *everything* else. That is a very compelling product.

I haven't filed any issues against the usability of managed VMs because 
setting one up is too much work already. If a 10 step guide is needed to 
get up and running then that is against the spirit of App Engine. There 
should only be one step: I provide a program and minimal metadata and you 
guys take care of everything else. If there is an issue for that I'll star 
it ;)

The steps towards "VM-ization" of instances is a good one if it is used to 
remove some of the restrictions on programs that we can run, but not if it 
used to put more maintenance burden on the user. The point of App Engine is 
that the service takes care of all that. That's why the runtime/API 
boundary is the right one: The user maintains the program and App Engine 
everything else.


On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 6:50:14 AM UTC+2, Andrew Jessup wrote:
>
> Hey folks, a PM on App Engine here. 
>
> The Python 3 question has been top of mind for us - since it's clearly the 
> future for Python development, and has recently reached a tipping point in 
> terms of usage. We're not sure at this stage if the best way forward is 
> with Managed VMs or regular App Engine, and we have a few experiments in 
> flight right now to figure that out.
>
> What I'm hearing on this thread though is that whatever the Python 3 
> solution is, it needs to be a lot simpler and less cumbersome than the 
> Managed VMs experience today, and we agree. We have some parallel work in 
> flight to dramatically simplify the working with Managed VMs (especially 
> around the toolchain) and managing applications that we hope to be able to 
> talk more about soon.
>
> I'd also second Jeff's point above about filing bugs on the usability of 
> Managed VMs (or even better, star a bug that already exists - generally a 
> highly starred bug will get worked on quicker than lots of bugs about the 
> same issue with only a few stars).
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Schnitzer  > wrote:
>
>> I agree with all of you - the Managed VM experience kinda sucks right now 
>> compared to what we're used to. Google will have an easier time making it 
>> better if we file bugs against it the usability issues.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Karl MacMillan > > wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>>  On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a 
>>> replacement for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity 
>>> & zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead, 
>>> Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't 
>>> want to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes. 
>>>
>>>  
>>> I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs 
>>> are a viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at 
>>> all for me. The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty 
>>> awful, the same set of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed 
>>> VMs, and basically I want the zero config of App Engine.
>>>
>>> This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing 
>>> servers - it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my time.
>>>
>>>  The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap 
>>> would be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime 
>>> ready in 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python 
>>> 2 runtime in 2020.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>>  On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:

 A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that 
 I'm managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere. 

 The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to 
 continue to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my 
 applications to Python 3. 

 My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I have 
 to go find another solution. 

  

 On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>
> You can run Python3 already with Managed VMs, although the experience 
> today does not compare favorably to traditional GAE. I suspect the best 
> course of action is to file usability bugs against managed VMs until they 
> work as well or better than what you're used to. More specific is better.
>
> Jeff
>>

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Adam Sah]

+1 to this comment.  Managed VMs don't replace the sysadmin simplicity of 
appengine, incl automatic OS security upgrades.

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:31:51 AM UTC-7, troberti wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply Andrew. This confirms my impression that managed VMs 
> are becoming the default 'solution' for things that App Engine can't 
> currently do. I understand you can't support every language out there, but 
> I want to stress that there should be runtimes that deliver on the core 
> premise of App Engine: Providing a service and a set of APIs, and when I 
> create a program using those APIs, App Engine keeps it running for decades 
> and takes care of *everything* else. That is a very compelling product.
>
> I haven't filed any issues against the usability of managed VMs because 
> setting one up is too much work already. If a 10 step guide is needed to 
> get up and running then that is against the spirit of App Engine. There 
> should only be one step: I provide a program and minimal metadata and you 
> guys take care of everything else. If there is an issue for that I'll star 
> it ;)
>
> The steps towards "VM-ization" of instances is a good one if it is used to 
> remove some of the restrictions on programs that we can run, but not if it 
> used to put more maintenance burden on the user. The point of App Engine is 
> that the service takes care of all that. That's why the runtime/API 
> boundary is the right one: The user maintains the program and App Engine 
> everything else.
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 6:50:14 AM UTC+2, Andrew Jessup wrote:
>>
>> Hey folks, a PM on App Engine here. 
>>
>> The Python 3 question has been top of mind for us - since it's clearly 
>> the future for Python development, and has recently reached a tipping point 
>> in terms of usage. We're not sure at this stage if the best way forward is 
>> with Managed VMs or regular App Engine, and we have a few experiments in 
>> flight right now to figure that out.
>>
>> What I'm hearing on this thread though is that whatever the Python 3 
>> solution is, it needs to be a lot simpler and less cumbersome than the 
>> Managed VMs experience today, and we agree. We have some parallel work in 
>> flight to dramatically simplify the working with Managed VMs (especially 
>> around the toolchain) and managing applications that we hope to be able to 
>> talk more about soon.
>>
>> I'd also second Jeff's point above about filing bugs on the usability of 
>> Managed VMs (or even better, star a bug that already exists - generally a 
>> highly starred bug will get worked on quicker than lots of bugs about the 
>> same issue with only a few stars).
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Schnitzer  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with all of you - the Managed VM experience kinda sucks right 
>>> now compared to what we're used to. Google will have an easier time making 
>>> it better if we file bugs against it the usability issues.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Karl MacMillan  
>>> wrote:
>>>
  
  On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti  wrote:

 Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a 
 replacement for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is simplicity 
 & zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead, 
 Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't 
 want to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes. 

  
 I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs 
 are a viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at 
 all for me. The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty 
 awful, the same set of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed 
 VMs, and basically I want the zero config of App Engine.

 This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing 
 servers - it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my 
 time.

  The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap 
 would be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime 
 ready in 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python 
 2 runtime in 2020.
  
  
 +1

 Karl

  On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>
> A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that 
> I'm managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere. 
>
> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to 
> continue to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my 
> applications to Python 3. 
>
> My question to Google is, will I be working on App Engine, or do I 
> have to go find another solution. 
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, 18 April 2015 19:19:54 UTC+10, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
>>
>> You can run

Re: [google-appengine] Python 2 End of Life 2020

[Emlyn]

+1 from me too. Managed VMs mean I'm a sysadmin; nooo! If I wanted
that I'd be using AWS like a peasant.

On 23 April 2015 at 04:44, Adam Sah  wrote:
> +1 to this comment.  Managed VMs don't replace the sysadmin simplicity of
> appengine, incl automatic OS security upgrades.
>
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 1:31:51 AM UTC-7, troberti wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply Andrew. This confirms my impression that managed VMs
>> are becoming the default 'solution' for things that App Engine can't
>> currently do. I understand you can't support every language out there, but I
>> want to stress that there should be runtimes that deliver on the core
>> premise of App Engine: Providing a service and a set of APIs, and when I
>> create a program using those APIs, App Engine keeps it running for decades
>> and takes care of *everything* else. That is a very compelling product.
>>
>> I haven't filed any issues against the usability of managed VMs because
>> setting one up is too much work already. If a 10 step guide is needed to get
>> up and running then that is against the spirit of App Engine. There should
>> only be one step: I provide a program and minimal metadata and you guys take
>> care of everything else. If there is an issue for that I'll star it ;)
>>
>> The steps towards "VM-ization" of instances is a good one if it is used to
>> remove some of the restrictions on programs that we can run, but not if it
>> used to put more maintenance burden on the user. The point of App Engine is
>> that the service takes care of all that. That's why the runtime/API boundary
>> is the right one: The user maintains the program and App Engine everything
>> else.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 6:50:14 AM UTC+2, Andrew Jessup wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey folks, a PM on App Engine here.
>>>
>>> The Python 3 question has been top of mind for us - since it's clearly
>>> the future for Python development, and has recently reached a tipping point
>>> in terms of usage. We're not sure at this stage if the best way forward is
>>> with Managed VMs or regular App Engine, and we have a few experiments in
>>> flight right now to figure that out.
>>>
>>> What I'm hearing on this thread though is that whatever the Python 3
>>> solution is, it needs to be a lot simpler and less cumbersome than the
>>> Managed VMs experience today, and we agree. We have some parallel work in
>>> flight to dramatically simplify the working with Managed VMs (especially
>>> around the toolchain) and managing applications that we hope to be able to
>>> talk more about soon.
>>>
>>> I'd also second Jeff's point above about filing bugs on the usability of
>>> Managed VMs (or even better, star a bug that already exists - generally a
>>> highly starred bug will get worked on quicker than lots of bugs about the
>>> same issue with only a few stars).
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Schnitzer 
>>> wrote:

 I agree with all of you - the Managed VM experience kinda sucks right
 now compared to what we're used to. Google will have an easier time making
 it better if we file bugs against it the usability issues.

 Jeff

 On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Karl MacMillan 
 wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 3:51 AM, troberti  wrote:
>
> Exactly. Managed VMs are great for some applications, but not a
> replacement for the managed runtimes. The idea of App Engine is 
> simplicity &
> zero-configuration (or at least as close to it as possible). Instead,
> Managed VMs seem to throw a lot of that back on the user's lap. I don't 
> want
> to 'dockerize' my apps and start managing my own runtimes.
>
>
> I completely agree. I’ve seen many comments suggesting that managed VMs
> are a viable alternative to traditional GAE, but this is not the case at 
> all
> for me. The docker tooling on OS X (my dev environment) is pretty awful, 
> the
> same set of services aren’t available in App Engine and Managed VMs, and
> basically I want the zero config of App Engine.
>
> This isn’t a lack of knowledge - I have a lot of experience managing
> servers - it’s that I’ve got other more important things to do with my 
> time.
>
> The Python 2 to 3 transitions is great example where a public roadmap
> would be very useful. They could state they'll have a Python 3 runtime 
> ready
> in 2017 and then have a 3 year transition period and stop the Python 2
> runtime in 2020.
>
>
> +1
>
> Karl
>
> On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:18:48 PM UTC+2, Jay Kyburz wrote:
>>
>> A port to a managed VM is a whole nother kettle of fish. If I do that
>> I'm managing my own servers and might as well move anywhere.
>>
>> The simple fact is that 2.7 is on the way out, and if I want to
>> continue to work in Python, I need a 5 year plan that has me port my
>> applications to Python 3.
>>
>>