Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Feb 03, 2016, at 11:03 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >The point being, I'm not entirely sure I agree that a major version bump >would *necessarily* be considered a big deal, let alone a barrier to >adoption. The problem isn't so much the major version bump, but what to do about the command name o

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 09:40:52AM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 02, 2016, at 03:33 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: > > >Changing the major version should be done for incompatible changes, and just > >doing it after 3.9 will probably just create confusion for both users that > >will wonder if it's i

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Terry Reedy
On 2/2/2016 9:54 AM, R. David Murray wrote: On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:33:58 +0200, Ezio Melotti wrote: On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Following the lead of 2.7.10 and 2.7.11 we could continue with 3.10, 3.11, etc. I think we should continue with 3.10, 3.11, etc. Chan

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread R. David Murray
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:33:58 +0200, Ezio Melotti wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Following the lead of 2.7.10 and 2.7.11 we could continue with 3.10, 3.11, > > etc. > > > > I think we should continue with 3.10, 3.11, etc. > Changing the major version should

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Feb 02, 2016, at 03:33 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote: >Changing the major version should be done for incompatible changes, and just >doing it after 3.9 will probably just create confusion for both users that >will wonder if it's incompatible with Python 3 and for things like the >executable name. Hop

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:54 PM, R. David Murray wrote: > On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:33:58 +0200, Ezio Melotti > wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> > Following the lead of 2.7.10 and 2.7.11 we could continue with 3.10, 3.11, >> > etc. >> > >> >> I think we should

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Martin Panter wrote: >> What and when to deprecate >> == >> >> * The number of releases before an API is removed is decided >> on a case-by-case basis depending on widely used the API is > > depending on [how] widely used > >> * In general

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Serhiy Storchaka wrote: > On 29.01.16 21:56, Ezio Melotti wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Serhiy Storchaka >> wrote: >>> >>> What about adding deprecations in bugfix releases? If current behavior is >>> obviously incorrect and should be fixed in dev

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Following the lead of 2.7.10 and 2.7.11 we could continue with 3.10, 3.11, > etc. > I think we should continue with 3.10, 3.11, etc. Changing the major version should be done for incompatible changes, and just doing it after 3.9 will pro

Re: [python-committers] Deprecation Policy PEP

2016-02-02 Thread Ezio Melotti
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 29, 2016, at 06:11 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >>+1 from me as well, especially once Serhiy's comments are addressed. > > Me too, but only if you add a PendingDeprecationWarning to > PendingDeprecationWarning . > The original plan actual