| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:27:51PM -0700, Christopher Head wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:40:17 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > With that in mind, I don't expect it to gain Python 3 support, nor do |
| 6 |
> > I expect an additional 15 days of waiting time to change that fact. 15 |
| 7 |
> > vs 30 days doesn't seem worth squabbling over. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not that I care about this specific case, but isn’t the 30-day time |
| 10 |
> period also meant as a nice long warning time for people *using* the |
| 11 |
> package to give them time to migrate to something else before it starts |
| 12 |
> to be unsupported, potentially break the depgraph, no longer be |
| 13 |
> installable on additional systems, and so on? |
| 14 |
> -- |
| 15 |
> Christopher Head |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That perspective opens a new potential bikeshed. I doubt anyone wants to |
| 18 |
have anotehr Py2 removal debate... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Of course, the depgraph is not an issue. If a package is |
| 21 |
masked, it will break immediately. Hence, required checks |
| 22 |
are run then the package is masked. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Cheers, |
| 26 |
Aaron |
Archives