public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
To: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:05:57 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+mi_8Y5L-gnio+RUs6XtfOqEbOAiyVS8y9XqYSkfLB8dnPd8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+mi_8Y5L-gnio+RUs6XtfOqEbOAiyVS8y9XqYSkfLB8dnPd8w@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/10/20 9:12 AM, Daniele Varrazzo 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?
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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Daniele
--
Adrian Klaver
[email protected]
view thread (19+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox