Subject: psycopg is the new psycopg3?

From: Daniele Varrazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:12:05 +0000

Hello,

I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called
"psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3
transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each
other. Sorry, Fibonacci...

The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the
coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think
the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the
requirements.txt convention. Dark times...

Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
version number?

Cheers,

-- Daniele

---

From: Rory Campbell-Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 17:24:01 +0000

> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as

Personally I think the "3" in "psycopg3" is clearer than simply
"psycopg" in relation to this being an evolution of the psycopg2
package.

Rory

---

From: Ethan Furman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:37:00 -0800

> "psycopg" in relation to this being an evolution of the psycopg2

And for me, a lone 3 at the end of a package name means Python 3 version.

Maybe skip the 3 and go straight to 4?

--
~Ethan~

---

From: Federico Di Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:44:53 +0100

On 10/11/20 18:12, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I 
> think the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi 
> and the requirements.txt convention. Dark times...
> 

Seems fine to me.

federico

---

From: Marco Beri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:47:39 +0100

> > Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as

For what is worth my opinion, I, too, think psycopg alone is ok.

Ciao.
Marco.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:59:58 +0100

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called "psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3 transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each other. Sorry, Fibonacci...
>
> The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the requirements.txt convention. Dark times...
>
> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as version number?

This is a not entirely unsimilar case to what pgAdmin4 is going
through right now (they started with pgadmin4 version 1.0, which then
led to a lot of confusion for people).

Thus, regardless of if you call it psycopg or psycopg3, please make
sure you start with version 3 :)

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: Adrian Klaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:05:57 -0800

> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as 

Yes.

1) "psycopg" is widely used as an alias for psycopg2, so that will cause 
confusion.

2) I see a lot of explaining why the order of versions is psycopg2, psycopg.

3) People don't seem to be confused that you can use psycopg2 with both 
Python 2 and 3.

-- 
Adrian Klaver
[email-masked]

---

From: Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:27:01 -0800

As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems better.
New users will interpret psycopg2 as "more advanced psycopg".

Vladimir

---

From: Oleksandr Shulgin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:30:08 +0100

> New users will interpret psycopg2 as "more advanced psycopg".

I second that opinion.  Also, a suggestion to skip "3" and go with "4"
doesn't seem to help against the Python version confusion concern, assuming
there is Python4 in some (distant?) future.

My 3¢,
--
Alex

---

From: Matthieu Rigal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:44:13 +0100

I do also second that opinion. Also, the problem of "3" being connotated in
Python is fading out. Nobody should be scared by a "3" anymore...

My 3.9 cents

---

From: Federico Di Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:47:36 +0100

On 11/11/20 09:44, Matthieu Rigal wrote:
> I do also second that opinion. Also, the problem of "3" being connotated 
> in Python is fading out. Nobody should be scared by a "3" anymore...
> 
> My 3.9 cents
> 
> Le mer. 11 nov. 2020 à 09:30, Oleksandr Shulgin 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> a 
> écrit :
> 
>     On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Vladimir Ryabtsev
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     I second that opinion.  Also, a suggestion to skip "3" and go with
>     "4" doesn't seem to help against the Python version confusion
>     concern, assuming there is Python4 in some (distant?) future.

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?

federico

---

From: Patrick Starrenburg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:53:44 +0100

Hi

I think the straight package name "psycopg" would be good.

PS

---

From: Daniele Varrazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 12:48:58 +0100

> 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.

"import psycopg" is ready to merge
(https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg3/commit/7e526af8aca1c31b32a3ad55a0baf0de477c961c)

-- Daniele

---

From: Adrian Klaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:52:03 -0700

> instead of the major is probably more so, and would come to bite us

Somewhere you lost me in the above.

What exactly is the proposed package naming and versioning going to be 
going forward?

---

From: Denis Laxalde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:05:46 +0200

> instead of the major is probably more so, and would come to bite us

That's a good point; so I agree moving to psycopg makes sense.

> (https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg3/commit/7e526af8aca1c31b32a3ad55a0baf0de477c961c)

I see here that the repository (URL) is also renamed, which looks 
reasonable as well.

---

From: Karsten Hilbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 19:46:59 +0200

> That's a good point; so I agree moving to psycopg makes sense.

+1

Karsten
--
GPG  40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6  5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B

---

From: Devrim Gündüz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:49:46 +0100

Hi,

> That's a good point; so I agree moving to psycopg makes sense.

You folks also should talk to the RPM and deb packagers before making
the final decision ;)

RPM packager speaking: This change does not seem to hurt us.

Regards,

-- 
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

---

From: Daniele Varrazzo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:46:36 +0100

Hi Devrim,

> RPM packager speaking: This change does not seem to hurt us.

Thank you, good call.

Package-wise, is there anything else we might do upstream to help you
there? I will ask the deb maintainers too.

-- Daniele

---

From: Denis Laxalde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 09:26:12 +0200

> RPM packager speaking: This change does not seem to hurt us.

There's no python3-psycopg package in the Debian archive so it probably 
won't hurt either.