Skip to content

Drop support for Python 3.3 #4036

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
emmatyping opened this issue Sep 29, 2017 · 13 comments
Closed

Drop support for Python 3.3 #4036

emmatyping opened this issue Sep 29, 2017 · 13 comments

Comments

@emmatyping
Copy link
Member

Python 3.3's End of Life is today. relevant docs. I believe in the past there was at least general consensus that we should drop support around the time it is EOL'd.

With an impending release, I believe it is the perfect time to stop supporting 3.3, however, we may want to support it for the 0.530 series, since the release is so soon.

Thoughts?

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

gvanrossum commented Sep 29, 2017 via email

@elazarg
Copy link
Contributor

elazarg commented Sep 30, 2017

(When it's done: #1243)

@deathaxe
Copy link

deathaxe commented Oct 2, 2017

There are still some tools out there which use python3.3 and can't update soon. Dropping python 3.3 support would render this tool useless for developers contributing to such tools.

Sublime Text is one famous example.

@JukkaL
Copy link
Collaborator

JukkaL commented Oct 2, 2017

@deathaxe It's possible to have multiple versions of Python 3 installed at the same time, so running mypy should only be slightly more complicated if users are stuck with Python 3.3. Do you think that the extra hassle of needing multiple installed Python 3 versions (and perhaps using virtualenv) is enough to alienate some users?

I agree that some users may want to continue using Python 3.3. Let's announce our intention to drop Python 3.3 in the release notes of 0.530 and link to this issue. If many users are worried about this, we can reconsider and keep 3.3 supported for now.

@elazarg I don't think that I want #1243 after all. I'll elaborate in #1243.

@deathaxe
Copy link

deathaxe commented Oct 2, 2017

The question depends on what "dropping" means. I understand it as dropping support for checking legacy features/constructs which got obsolete in newer python versions.

If dropping targets the required python version to run mypy only, it's not that critical. Running different versions of python is no problem. Many people use virtualenv for isolated environments anyway.

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

The intent as I understand it is to require at least 3.4 to run mypy. It can still analyze 3.2 and 3.3 code.

@JukkaL
Copy link
Collaborator

JukkaL commented Oct 2, 2017

Even if mypy didn't officially support type checking 3.3 code, the differences between 3.3 and 3.4 are sufficiently minor that using the 3.4 target mode should be fine for most users. However, I don't see why we'd need to drop 3.3 as a type checking target, since the cost of maintaining it is minor -- mainly there may be some extra complexity in certain typeshed stubs.

@emmatyping
Copy link
Member Author

Yes, the intention has always been to drop support for running mypy on 3.3. It should continue to analyze 3.3 code however, since 3.3 code should be valid 3.4 code.

@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Oct 21, 2017

By the way, here's the pip installs for mypy from PyPI for the last month:

$ pypinfo --percent --pip mypy pyversion
python_version percent download_count
-------------- ------- --------------
3.6              63.9%         38,487
3.5              23.4%         14,107
3.4              10.1%          6,081
2.7               1.3%            763
3.3               0.8%            455
3.7               0.6%            364
2.6               0.0%              2
3.2               0.0%              1

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

Oh, I think we forgot to do this for 0.540.

@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Oct 22, 2017

Is this the file for the release notes? Is 0.550 next?

http://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/revision_history.html

@gvanrossum
Copy link
Member

Yes and yes. But it looks like we also didn't merge the release branch back into master. I think the proper procedure should have been to make that change in master first and then cherry-pick it into the release branch, but we took a shortcut there.

@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Oct 23, 2017

How about something like #4152?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants