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

[Veronica Andreo]

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

El mar, 2 mar 2021 a las 22:54, Markus Neteler (<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> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20210316/91bc9afd/attachment.html>