Path: csiph.com!pasdenom.info!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Sandro Tosi Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Python 3.11, bytecode and new internals Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Nov 21 17:31:10 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.75 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmruuzFOvqti6+aMqNaD6JpsmlqysVvfa8/BEDHzizdSJx2meiB cO0G6UnWormCyzGOm8bFpTS9c3/wZ6d1rE4NfqqA6oK4 X-Google-SMTP-Source: AA0mqf6T28rQdYf116x4DI5+DIpMtxw5pc9Mp4phbz/QKDiieZkTCumlXt3lj3o7VxTHpi28F9frhEGwVWRV5Zi8skE= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:dec7:0:b0:3bb:adf1:2bc7 with SMTP id v190-20020a1fdec7000000b003bbadf12bc7mr3071483vkg.25.1669051847549; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 09:30:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20492 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/CAB4XWXzrMpHn6ovHOYKhHZ72HUBGDWmGe8oGwSd8Jbweho+iVQ@mail.gmail.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 34 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 12:30:21 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <6a68f118-391b-2e81-c325-3148a0970ef8@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14632 On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:03 PM Louis-Philippe V=C3=A9ronneau wrote: > > On 2022-11-21 02 h 08, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > I'm just flagging this up here, with a question about how we should > > proceed. Certainly we are not ready to make Python 3.11 the default > > Python version!! > > This is a concern I share and I think I've been pretty vocal about it. > > I feel the state of python packages for Bookworm with 3.10 was pretty > good and it seemed reasonable to prioritize stability for our next > stable release :) > > It's very frustrating to work on packaging python libraries and apps for > a whole release cycle, just to see all that work put in the bin at the > last minute because upstream doesn't support 3.11... this, 100 times > I've been told the current 3.11 transition was a test, and if it was > clear too many important things were broken and couldn't be fixed, we > would roll back and release using 3.10. why are we running a "test" this close to the release? *who* are we running this test for? who made this decision (i figure RT gave the go ahead, but still)? is there any searchable source for this claim? Thanks, --=20 Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi