Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 30 August 2015 at 05:16, Yury Selivanov wrote: > Since there is at least some possibility that we might have another > discussion about asyncio removal from the stdlib in 3.6, should I > just reuse the warning we had in 3.4 for asyncio: > > > Note: The asyncio package has been included in t

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 08/29/2015 12:18 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: Larry, what will the release cycle for 3.5.x look like? Can we do bugfix releases every 3 or 4 months? It's usually more like every six. I've proposed doing them a little more frequently and gotten push back; a new Python release causes a bunch

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Larry, what will the release cycle for 3.5.x look like? Can we do bugfix releases every 3 or 4 months? Yury On 2015-08-29 1:36 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: On 08/28/2015 08:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 08:35 Yury Selivanov wrote: Unfortunately, separating it from t

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 08/28/2015 08:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 08:35 Yury Selivanov > wrote: Unfortunately, separating it from the standard library is something that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 release candidates process. Ultimat

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 29 August 2015 at 04:44, Gustavo Carneiro wrote: > On 28 August 2015 at 17:11, Yury Selivanov wrote: >> >> On 2015-08-28 11:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, separating it from the standard library is something >>> that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 rel

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 28 August 2015 at 17:11, Yury Selivanov wrote: > On 2015-08-28 11:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> >> Unfortunately, separating it from the standard library is something >> that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 release candidates >> process. >> >> >> Ultimately it's Larry'

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 2015-08-28 11:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: Unfortunately, separating it from the standard library is something that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 release candidates process. Ultimately it's Larry's call, but I don't see why we couldn't. If we were talking about somet

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On August 28, 2015 at 12:07:48 PM, Victor Stinner (victor.stin...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2015-08-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Donald Stufft : > > Unless we fix the sys.path ordering to make it possible. > > The problem is the deadline: Python 3.5 final is scheduled for the > September, 13. We have 2 weeks to

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

2015-08-28 18:02 GMT+02:00 Donald Stufft : > Unless we fix the sys.path ordering to make it possible. The problem is the deadline: Python 3.5 final is scheduled for the September, 13. We have 2 weeks to decide what to do with asyncio. I don't think that it's a good idea to modify how sys.path is

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On August 28, 2015 at 12:01:25 PM, Victor Stinner (victor.stin...@gmail.com) wrote: > 2015-08-28 17:34 GMT+02:00 Yury Selivanov : > > I too would enjoy more frequent release schedule of asyncio. > > The problem is also to allow users to upgrade easily asyncio to > retrieve new features, or simply

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

2015-08-28 17:34 GMT+02:00 Yury Selivanov : > I too would enjoy more frequent release schedule of asyncio. The problem is also to allow users to upgrade easily asyncio to retrieve new features, or simply latest bug fixes. As explained in other emails, if asyncio is part of the stlidb, it's *not* p

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

2015-08-28 17:44 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon : > Ultimately it's Larry's call, but I don't see why we couldn't. If we were > talking about something as low-level as the urllib package then I would > agree, but beyond its own tests is there anything in the stdlib that depends > on asyncio? At the beginn

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 08:35 Yury Selivanov wrote: > Victor, > > On 2015-08-28 5:01 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2015-08-27 23:15 GMT+02:00 Yury Selivanov : > >> Recently, in an asyncio related issue [1], Guido said that new features > >> for asyncio have to wait till 3.6, since asyn

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Victor, On 2015-08-28 5:01 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: Hi, 2015-08-27 23:15 GMT+02:00 Yury Selivanov : Recently, in an asyncio related issue [1], Guido said that new features for asyncio have to wait till 3.6, since asyncio is no longer a provisional package. (...) For example, there is an issue

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On August 28, 2015 at 6:36:21 AM, Paul Moore (p.f.mo...@gmail.com) wrote: > On 28 August 2015 at 10:46, Gustavo Carneiro wrote: > > I think this is a packaging problem. > > > > In an ideal world, Python would ship some version of asyncio, but you would > > also be able to pip install a newer versio

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 28 August 2015 at 10:46, Gustavo Carneiro wrote: > I think this is a packaging problem. > > In an ideal world, Python would ship some version of asyncio, but you would > also be able to pip install a newer version into your virtual environment, > and it would override the version in stdlib. > >

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

I think this is a packaging problem. In an ideal world, Python would ship some version of asyncio, but you would also be able to pip install a newer version into your virtual environment, and it would override the version in stdlib. As it stands now, however, if you pip install another version of

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Hi, 2015-08-27 23:15 GMT+02:00 Yury Selivanov : > Recently, in an asyncio related issue [1], Guido said that new features > for asyncio have to wait till 3.6, since asyncio is no longer a provisional > package. (...) > For example, there is an issue [2] to add starttls support to asyncio. > (...)

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 28 August 2015 at 00:25, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I'd suggest including a clearer motivation there: > > Note: The asyncio package has been included in the standard > library on a provisional basis, and thus may gain new APIs and > capabilities in maintenance releases as it matures. Backwards >

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 28 August 2015 at 09:00, Yury Selivanov wrote: > Brett, > > On 2015-08-27 6:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > [...] >> >> I say it's either fully provisional or it's not. I'm fine with extending >> its provisional status another feature release as long as it clearly states >> that in What's New for

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Brett, On 2015-08-27 6:46 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: [...] I say it's either fully provisional or it's not. I'm fine with extending its provisional status another feature release as long as it clearly states that in What's New for 3.5, but I don't think this granularity guarantee of not breaking

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 at 15:44 Guido van Rossum wrote: > Maybe asyncio should just be kept provisional during 3.5, with a separate > promise to remain backward compatible? > My worry is that promising backwards-compatibility while still trying to change things is going to lead to needlessly hamper

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 2015-08-27 6:44 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: Maybe asyncio should just be kept provisional during 3.5, with a separate promise to remain backward compatible? I'm +1. I'm also certain that by 3.6.0 we will stabilize asyncio to the point we can freeze it like any other stdlib module. Yury

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 at 15:24 Yury Selivanov wrote: > On 2015-08-27 5:53 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > > > Considering that Python versioning is defined as > > major.minor.micro, I'll > > rephrase the proposal: > > > > Level 1: Backwards incompatible changes might be introduced i

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Maybe asyncio should just be kept provisional during 3.5, with a separate promise to remain backward compatible? On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: > On 2015-08-27 5:53 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> >> >> Considering that Python versioning is defined as >> major.minor.

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 2015-08-27 5:53 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: Considering that Python versioning is defined as major.minor.micro, I'll rephrase the proposal: Level 1: Backwards incompatible changes might be introduced in new Python releases (including micro releases) Level 2: Only backwa

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 at 14:16 Yury Selivanov wrote: > Recently, in an asyncio related issue [1], Guido said that new features > for asyncio have to wait till 3.6, since asyncio is no longer a provisional > package. Later, in an off-list conversation, he suggested that this topic > should be discu

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 at 14:39 Yury Selivanov wrote: > > On 2015-08-27 5:31 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: > > On 2015-08-27 5:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> > >> My proposal is to amend PEP 411 with two levels of provisional > >> packages: > >> > >> Level 1: Backwards incompatible changes

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Please use "feature release" (e.g. 3.5 -> 3.6) and "bugfix release" (e.g. 3.5.0 -> 3.5.1). The major/minor terminology is confusing, since something like 2 -> 3 isn't just "major", it is "earthshattering". :-) On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: > > On 2015-08-27 5:31 PM, Yury

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 2015-08-27 5:31 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote: On 2015-08-27 5:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: My proposal is to amend PEP 411 with two levels of provisional packages: Level 1: Backwards incompatible changes might be introduced in point releases. Level 2: Only backwards compatib

Re: [Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

On 2015-08-27 5:24 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: My proposal is to amend PEP 411 with two levels of provisional packages: Level 1: Backwards incompatible changes might be introduced in point releases. Level 2: Only backwards compatible changes can be introduced in new point

[Python-Dev] provisional status for asyncio

Recently, in an asyncio related issue [1], Guido said that new features for asyncio have to wait till 3.6, since asyncio is no longer a provisional package. Later, in an off-list conversation, he suggested that this topic should be discussed on python-dev, and that it might indeed make sense to e