You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In #4179 / #4907, the xarray policy around minimum supported version of dependencies was changed, with the reasoning that the previous policy (based on NEP-29) was too aggressive.
Ironically, this caused xarray to drop Python 3.8 on Jan 26th (#7461), 3 months before what NEP-29 recommends (Apr 14th).
This is hard to defend - and in fact it sparked discontent (see late comments in #7461).
Regardless of what policy xarray decides to use internally, it should never be more aggressive than NEP-29. The xarray documentation is also incorrect, as it states "Python: 24 months (NEP-29)" which is not, in fact, in NEP-29.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
crusaderky
changed the title
xarray minimum versions policy should not exceed NEP-29
xarray minimum versions policy is more aggressive than NEP-29
Apr 21, 2023
see also #7765, where there is a bit more information and discussion.
In short, the policy did work like NEP-29 before, but stopped doing so with python 3.8 because python switched from a irregular ~18 month release cycle to a regular 12 month cycle. We can adjust our policy by extending these 24 months to 30 months, which makes it align with NEP-29's 42 months window.
What is your issue?
In #4179 / #4907, the xarray policy around minimum supported version of dependencies was changed, with the reasoning that the previous policy (based on NEP-29) was too aggressive.
Ironically, this caused xarray to drop Python 3.8 on Jan 26th (#7461), 3 months before what NEP-29 recommends (Apr 14th).
This is hard to defend - and in fact it sparked discontent (see late comments in #7461).
Regardless of what policy xarray decides to use internally, it should never be more aggressive than NEP-29.
The xarray documentation is also incorrect, as it states "Python: 24 months (NEP-29)" which is not, in fact, in NEP-29.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: