[Biopython] Fwd: Biopython 1.76 plans
Peter Cock <[email protected]> Wed, 18 Dec 2019 20:06:38 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.bio.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKVJ-_6mGw8N+QUGRb9puBniYJX6aO2hod2LbLiaupuSXk0YZA@mail.gmail.com> |
A brief discussion with Chris about next steps in 2020 once this release is done. Peter ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chris Rands <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 18:03 Subject: Re: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans To: Peter Cock <[email protected]> Thanks Peter, I like your plan, and please do fwd to the mailing list if you think it's of broad interest Chris ------------------------------ *From:* Peter Cock <[email protected]> *Sent:* 18 December 2019 6:09 PM *To:* Chris Rands <[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans Shall we stay on the list? My plan: (1) Release Biopython 1.76 with Python 2.7 and 3.5 support (2) Turn off testing under Python 2.7 and 3.5 Then tackle the low handing fruit (in no particular order): (3) Remove Bio._py3k compatibility shim (4) Look for and remove other Python 2 specific workarounds (5) Remove no longer needed __future__ imports etc (6) Remove all the Python 2/3 overhead in the C code Also, where sensible and after appropriate discussion, take advantage of new language or standard library features in Python 3.6+ as appropriate (e.g. sorted dictionaries by default without needing to import OrderedDict from collections). I hadn't thought much about f-strings (beyond that I'm not used to them and that makes me dislike them), but that could be a good example. Peter On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:52 PM Chris Rands <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Peter, > > Apologies if this has already been discussed, but is the plan to merely passively drop support for Python 2/Python 3.5 or to also actively update existing code? > > For example, in 2020, would you merge a PR converting all string formatting to f-strings (supported since Python 3.6) or removing all `from __future__ import print_function` lines? > > Best, Chris > > > ________________________________ > From: Biopython <biopython-bounces+c_rands100= [email protected]> on behalf of Peter Cock < [email protected]> > Sent: 18 December 2019 5:16 PM > To: Biopython Mailing List <[email protected]> > Subject: [Biopython] Biopython 1.76 plans > > Dear Biopythoneers, > > As has been discussed earlier, we hope to release Biopython 1.76 this > month (December 2019). This will be a significant milestone as our > final release to support Python 2 which is now officially at end of > life: > > https://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython/2019-November/016735.html > > https://python3statement.org/ > > Additionally, I am proposing this also be the final release to support > Python 3.5: > > https://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython/2019-December/016737.html > > We had a couple of issues reported with Biopython 1.75 post release, > mainly from the Debian packaging team covering C code doctests and C > code on alternative CPUs - which are now being tested via TravisCI. > > Otherwise I am not aware of any reported issues which would be a > release blocker. > > If no one has any objections, I propose to do the release this Friday, > 20 December 2019. > > Any thoughts? > > Thank you, > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Biopython mailing list - [email protected] > https://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython _______________________________________________ Biopython mailing list - [email protected] https://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython