Remove outdated compatibility matrix from README

[jeffwidman]

As noted in #1937, this matrix is out of date now that https://github.com/jazzband/pip-tools/releases/tag/7.0.0 has shipped.

Technically it could be kept around and add some more rows, but I don't think it's worth the effort... it will always be going out of date. Instead, let the internal dep constraints and classifiers within setup.py/pyproject.toml constrain what versions of python / pip are compatible with that version of pip-tools. Most users won't care, but those who will can access that data manually. And otherwise it'll all be smoothly resolved by package managers.

So let's just remove it altogether.

Fix: #1937

Contributor checklist

• Included tests for the changes.
• PR title is short, clear, and ready to be included in the user-facing changelog.

Maintainer checklist

• Verified one of these labels is present: backwards incompatible, feature, enhancement, deprecation, bug, dependency, docs or skip-changelog as they determine changelog listing.
• Assign the PR to an existing or new milestone for the target version (following Semantic Versioning).

[chrysle]

Instead, let the internal dep constraints within setup.py/pyproject.toml constrain what versions of python / pip are compatible with that version of pip-tools. Most users won't care, but those who will can access that data manually.

Though this only provides constraints for the current version, throwing away the carefully curated information about historical versions.

At least there should be a general note about compatibility.

[jeffwidman]

I don't follow... Were these dep / classifier versions not pinned in previous releases? It's not hard to look at the contents of a file for a particular release tag...

My point was that very few users care about this information and for those who do it's not hard to retrieve that data.

If they weren't pinned in the past, well, then yeah might be tough to find without trial and error.

Regardless, now that 3.6 (and now even 3.7) is eol'd and I see more and more packages dropping support for them, won't be too long until there won't be much demand for a package manager that supports older python versions simply because there aren't package updates available.

[chrysle]

I don't follow... Were these dep / classifier versions not pinned in previous releases? It's not hard to look at the contents of a file for a particular release tag...

Well yes, that's true. Hadn't thought of the possibility of digging through the tags.

Then maybe could you keep the introduction of that section, but remove the table and say that required pip versions can be determined via pyproject.toml?

[jeffwidman]

Cool, yeah, some days it feels like I spend hours doing git bisect + git blame followed by 5 mins to make a 1 line change. 😁

Then maybe could you keep the introduction of that section, but remove the table and say that required pip versions can be determined via pyproject.toml?

I personally don't think that section has enough value to merit being on the README...

Users won't care until they run into a problem, in which case they'll google / stackoverflow / start looking at setup.py / pyproject.toml etc. And then they'll probably be told they need to bump to a newer version of python or pip, which IMO in most situations is the better solution.

And when it's not, generally they (or whoever is answering their question on StackOverflow) will tell them to look at pyproject.toml.

But I just don't see them at any point in this process going to the readme to say "How do I find the supported versions?"

Just my $0.02, no problem if you disagree and prefer to solve differently, I'm a drive-by contributor, not a maintainer here.

[chrysle]

Let's do it then! Always happy to find an agreement.

[atugushev]

For the last 3 years I've never seen someone use this table.

[atugushev]

Thanks @jeffwidman and @chrysle!

[chrysle]

For the last 3 years I've never seen someone use this table.

How can you possibly see that? ;-)

[atugushev]

How can you possibly see that? ;-)

Assumption is based on the number of times I've referred users to this section.

[jeffwidman]

For the last 3 years I've never seen someone use this table.

How can you possibly see that? ;-)

It's @atugushev. He sees things that are impossible for normal people to see 😁 :