[GRASS-dev] [GRASS-PSC] Min. req. of programming language standard support, GRASS GIS 8

[Michael Barton]

It seems like it would be a good idea to include a section for periodic review and updating of the language standards support. That is, do we review and reissue with each major version release (e.g., 7 -> 8)? Each sub-major release (7.8 -> 7.9). Or do we review and potentially update with any major/sub-major update of the language and its distribution (e.g., Python 2 -> 3 or 3.7 -> 3.8)? Or are there other ways to decide when to do review and update this standard?

Michael
_____________________________
C. Michael Barton
Director, Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Director, Network for Computational Modeling in Social & Ecological Sciences
Associate Director, School of Complex Adaptive Systems
Professor, School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-2402
USA

voice: 480-965-6262 (SHESC), 480-965-8130/727-9746 (CSDC)
fax: 480-965-7671(SHESC), 480-727-0709 (CSDC)
www: http://shesc.asu.edu, https://complexity.asu.edu, http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton

On Mar 16, 2021, at 12:30 PM, Veronica Andreo <veroandreo at gmail.com<mailto:veroandreo at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Thanks for all the feedback.

In practical terms then, shall we:
- remove all python references from the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote only for C/C++, while creating a separate RFC for the minimum python version?
- add a formula that sets on which pace the minimum supported python version will change to the Language Standards draft RFC [0] and vote for everything altogether?

Vero

[0] https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/7_LanguageStandardsSupport__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!IGGdA3JGHwIvM70uQAxKgP-SoAnSPcupVWcVBGmLKhV4ocBAMqqxF8S2vhiwWU_ODXbcMWU$>

El mar, 2 mar 2021 a las 22:54, Markus Neteler (<neteler at osgeo.org<mailto:neteler at osgeo.org>>) escribió:
Hi all,

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Nicklas Larsson via grass-dev
<grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>> wrote:
>
> Good, Anna, you brought up this question on regular update of Python version support. I deliberately left that part out of the draft for setting/updating language standards, as I would argue it deserves a RFC on its own.

I agree to both:

- we need to find a formula with our release rhythm and the oldest
still supported Python version,
- and yes, please let's separate this out into a different discussion
(RFC if needed).

I.e., one C/C++ RFC and one Python RFC.

> A RFC should't be updatable, but may be overridden, partly or completely, with a new RFC. Adopting adherence to a new C or C++ standard will most likely be a quite rare business and should be dealt with a new RFC.

I agree to that, as it would become a moving target otherwise.

> The discussed approach, following the Python versions life-cycle, could possibly look a little different, however the forms and modes for this should be established likewise with a RFC.
>
> If we agree now, to set Python 3.6 as a minimum, we have roughly six months to work out such a procedure. I’m glad to assist to this in, say around, October, in time for the 3.6 retirement.

Let me suggest to separate Python out into another discussion.
The pace of C/++ standards and that of Python versions are quite
different and not easy to handle in a single RFC.

Just my 0.02 cents,

Markus
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:grass-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc__;!!IKRxdwAv5BmarQ!IGGdA3JGHwIvM70uQAxKgP-SoAnSPcupVWcVBGmLKhV4ocBAMqqxF8S2vhiwWU_OZbE7gBY$

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20210316/f2be1214/attachment-0001.html>