Re: [VOTE] Python 2 Removal for MXNet 1.6

[Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>]

Did this vote pass? Can we remove Python2 support from master?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:51 PM Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:49 AM Leonard Lausen <le...@lausen.nl> wrote:
>
>> Due to References: header the prior email was still sorted in the
>> discussion thread. Cancelling this and resending without that header.
>>
>> Leonard Lausen <le...@lausen.nl> writes:
>>
>> > Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> 1. Which Python version to support. 3.5 vs 3.6 is currently in the
>> >> discussion due to Ubuntu 16.04 being shipped with 3.5 while the biggest
>> >> market share being 3.6 as of now.
>> >
>> > We could drop Python 2 even before deciding when to drop 3.5.
>> >
>> >> 2. When to do the deprecation. EOY to match with official Python 2
>> >> deprecation, in 1.5 years to be in line with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS or with
>> the
>> >> next major release (2.0) to adhere to semantic versioning.
>> >
>> > From a Semantic Versioning standepoint, "Given a version number
>> > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make
>> > incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in a
>> > backwards compatible manner, [...]" [1].
>> >
>> > Based on Semantic Versioning, the question is if we consider Python 2
>> > support to be part of our API, or rather independent. In the latter
>> > case, dropping for 1.6 is fine.
>> >
>> > From a user-experience perspective, users that want to continue using
>> > Python 2 for the next 127 days (until EOL date) currently have bigger
>> > worries than needing to upgrade to the next upcoming MXNet release. They
>> > must transition their codebase to Py3 within 127 days. For those days,
>> > they may just stay on MXNet 1.5?
>> >
>> > [1]: https://semver.org/
>> >
>> >> Once these points (and any future ones) have been properly discussed
>> and
>> >> the community came to an agreement, we can formalize it with a voting
>> >> thread. Until then, I'd recommend to refrain from any actions or
>> >> user-facing communication regarding this topic.
>> >
>> > Thus, let's start a vote on dropping Python 2 for MXNet 1.6.
>> > It's fine if this vote fails, but we need to get a clear understanding
>> > how we want to move forward.
>> >
>> > For better visibility, I'm removing the In-Reply-To: header, which was
>> > pointing to
>> CAHTWJDOrqsrBAU0A89xJwAsaWGBvGz7BOJSU6TKmxDL+RUH8-Q@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:29 AM Pedro Larroy <
>> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have sent a PR that removes Python2 from CI. But was closed. I
>> thought
>> >>> everyone was +1 on this one. This would remove quite a bit of load on
>> CI:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15990
>> >>>
>> >>> If it's not the right time to do this, what steps do we need to take?
>> >>>
>> >>> Pedro.
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Python 2 Removal for MXNet 1.6

[Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com>]

No, the vote was cancelled.

Pedro Larroy <pe...@gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 7. Sep. 2019,
00:05:

> Did this vote pass? Can we remove Python2 support from master?
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:51 PM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:49 AM Leonard Lausen <le...@lausen.nl>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Due to References: header the prior email was still sorted in the
> >> discussion thread. Cancelling this and resending without that header.
> >>
> >> Leonard Lausen <le...@lausen.nl> writes:
> >>
> >> > Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> 1. Which Python version to support. 3.5 vs 3.6 is currently in the
> >> >> discussion due to Ubuntu 16.04 being shipped with 3.5 while the
> biggest
> >> >> market share being 3.6 as of now.
> >> >
> >> > We could drop Python 2 even before deciding when to drop 3.5.
> >> >
> >> >> 2. When to do the deprecation. EOY to match with official Python 2
> >> >> deprecation, in 1.5 years to be in line with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS or with
> >> the
> >> >> next major release (2.0) to adhere to semantic versioning.
> >> >
> >> > From a Semantic Versioning standepoint, "Given a version number
> >> > MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: MAJOR version when you make
> >> > incompatible API changes, MINOR version when you add functionality in
> a
> >> > backwards compatible manner, [...]" [1].
> >> >
> >> > Based on Semantic Versioning, the question is if we consider Python 2
> >> > support to be part of our API, or rather independent. In the latter
> >> > case, dropping for 1.6 is fine.
> >> >
> >> > From a user-experience perspective, users that want to continue using
> >> > Python 2 for the next 127 days (until EOL date) currently have bigger
> >> > worries than needing to upgrade to the next upcoming MXNet release.
> They
> >> > must transition their codebase to Py3 within 127 days. For those days,
> >> > they may just stay on MXNet 1.5?
> >> >
> >> > [1]: https://semver.org/
> >> >
> >> >> Once these points (and any future ones) have been properly discussed
> >> and
> >> >> the community came to an agreement, we can formalize it with a voting
> >> >> thread. Until then, I'd recommend to refrain from any actions or
> >> >> user-facing communication regarding this topic.
> >> >
> >> > Thus, let's start a vote on dropping Python 2 for MXNet 1.6.
> >> > It's fine if this vote fails, but we need to get a clear understanding
> >> > how we want to move forward.
> >> >
> >> > For better visibility, I'm removing the In-Reply-To: header, which was
> >> > pointing to
> >> CAHTWJDOrqsrBAU0A89xJwAsaWGBvGz7BOJSU6TKmxDL+RUH8-Q@mail.gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:29 AM Pedro Larroy <
> >> pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I have sent a PR that removes Python2 from CI. But was closed. I
> >> thought
> >> >>> everyone was +1 on this one. This would remove quite a bit of load
> on
> >> CI:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15990
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If it's not the right time to do this, what steps do we need to
> take?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Pedro.
> >>
> >
>