On 6/26/21 4:48 AM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 08:47, Federico Di Gregorio <fog@dndg.it> wrote:
>
>> Reading all the messages I have second toughts. If psycopg2 is here to
>> stay, i.e., if it will not be completely replaced by "psycopg3" (and by
>> completely I mean shutting down everything about it) then we will have
>> the following situation:
>>
>> psycopg2 version 2.x.y
>> psycopg version 3.w.z
>>
>> that at first sight is a bit confusing, isn't it?
>
> I have been settled with psycopg3 as the package name for a bit. Then,
> a few days ago, releasing psycopg 2.9, I got to see some problems. The
> main one is that, in order to respect semver, we should accept
> introducing breaking changes only at the change of the main version.
> People have been very confused to see breaking changes, although they
> were minor, from 2.8 to 2.9.
>
> Semver is much more an accepted, and expected, version number
> organisation than having the major number in the package name. I can
> expect to see psycopg 4, psycopg 5 etc. as we need to introduce
> breaking changes. So I think, although going from psycopg2 v2.x to
> psycopg v3.x might be confusing, the need to pin to the minor version
> instead of the major is probably more so, and would come to bite us
> much more often.
Somewhere you lost me in the above.
What exactly is the proposed package naming and versioning going to be
going forward?
>
> "import psycopg" is ready to merge
> (https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg3/commit/7e526af8aca1c31b32a3ad55a0baf0de477c961c)
>
> -- Daniele
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com