Re: Python 3.11, bytecode and new internals
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > this, 100 times
>
> I very much don't agree. I think it's going pretty well, and the number of
> breakage isn't high. We just need a little bit of effort to make it in good
> enough shape.
> [...]
> Now, out of *many* of my packages, only a very few broke. Complicated
> packages like Eventlet for example, just worked. Others had upstream patches
> I applied. And I am in the opinion that we should go ahead and make 3.11 the
> default.
If there are people with the expertise to help upstream update
bytecode and parso (and probably several other low-level packages) for
3.11 so that the software that depends on them works with 3.11, then
fine. (And it is a non-trivial update, AFAICT.) But until then, I'd
be very reluctant to make 3.11 the default.
I haven't decided what to do with packages which now FTBFS under 3.11
because of this. Should we just let them fall out of testing (that
certainly includes spyder, and quite possibly ipython as well)? Or
should we mark them as X-Python3-Version: << 3.11 so they can stay in
testing as long as Python 3.10 is the default? If we make 3.11 the
default, these packages will likely not be in bookworm, which might
upset our users even more.
Best wishes,
Julian
Reply to: