public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedpsycopg is the new psycopg3?
19+ messages / 14 participants
[nested] [flat]
* psycopg is the new psycopg3?
@ 2020-11-10 17:12 Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:24 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Rory Campbell-Lange <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:59 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-19 14:53 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Patrick Starrenburg <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 5 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Daniele Varrazzo @ 2020-11-10 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: psycopg
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 17:24 ` Rory Campbell-Lange <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:37 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Ethan Furman <[email protected]>
4 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Rory Campbell-Lange @ 2020-11-10 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; +Cc: psycopg
On 10/11/20, Daniele Varrazzo ([email protected]) wrote:
> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
> version number?
Personally I think the "3" in "psycopg3" is clearer than simply
"psycopg" in relation to this being an evolution of the psycopg2
package.
Rory
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:24 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Rory Campbell-Lange <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 17:37 ` Ethan Furman <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ethan Furman @ 2020-11-10 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
On 11/10/20 9:24 AM, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
> On 10/11/20, Daniele Varrazzo ([email protected]) wrote:
>> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
>> version number?
>
> Personally I think the "3" in "psycopg3" is clearer than simply
> "psycopg" in relation to this being an evolution of the psycopg2
> package.
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~
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 17:44 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Marco Beri <[email protected]>
4 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Federico Di Gregorio @ 2020-11-10 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
On 10/11/20 18:12, 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?
Seems fine to me.
federico
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 17:47 ` Marco Beri <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Marco Beri @ 2020-11-10 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 18:45, Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as
> > version number?
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
For what is worth my opinion, I, too, think psycopg alone is ok.
Ciao.
Marco.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 17:59 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
4 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Magnus Hagander @ 2020-11-10 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; +Cc: psycopg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo
<[email protected]> 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/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 18:05 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
4 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Klaver @ 2020-11-10 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; psycopg
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]
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-10 18:27 ` Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Ryabtsev @ 2020-11-10 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>; +Cc: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; psycopg
As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems better.
New users will interpret psycopg2 as "more advanced psycopg".
Vladimir
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 10:06, Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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]
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-11 08:30 ` Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Oleksandr Shulgin @ 2020-11-11 08:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>; +Cc: Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>; Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; psycopg
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
wrote:
> As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems better.
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-11 08:44 ` Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu Rigal @ 2020-11-11 08:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>; +Cc: Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>; Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>; Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; psycopg
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 protected]> a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems better.
>> 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
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-11 08:47 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Federico Di Gregorio @ 2020-11-11 08:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
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 protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a
> écrit :
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 7:27 PM Vladimir Ryabtsev
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> As long as psycopg2 is not disappearing anywhere, psycopg3 seems
> better.
> 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.
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-26 11:48 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 16:52 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Daniele Varrazzo @ 2021-06-26 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 08:47, Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]> 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.
"import psycopg" is ready to merge
(https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg3/commit/7e526af8aca1c31b32a3ad55a0baf0de477c961c)
-- Daniele
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-26 16:52 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Klaver @ 2021-06-26 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>; Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>; +Cc: [email protected]
On 6/26/21 4:48 AM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 08:47, Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-28 13:05 ` Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 17:46 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 20:49 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Denis Laxalde @ 2021-06-28 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
Daniele Varrazzo a écrit :
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 08:47, Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]> 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.
That's a good point; so I agree moving to psycopg makes sense.
> "import psycopg" is ready to merge
> (https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg3/commit/7e526af8aca1c31b32a3ad55a0baf0de477c961c)
I see here that the repository (URL) is also renamed, which looks
reasonable as well.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-28 17:46 ` Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Karsten Hilbert @ 2021-06-28 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
Am Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 03:05:46PM +0200 schrieb Denis Laxalde:
> >>psycopg2 version 2.x.y
> >>psycopg version 3.w.z
>
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-28 20:49 ` Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 23:46 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-29 07:26 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Devrim Gündüz @ 2021-06-28 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Hi,
On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 15:05 +0200, Denis Laxalde wrote:
> 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
Attachments:
[application/pgp-signature] signature.asc (833B, ../../[email protected]/2-signature.asc)
download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 20:49 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-28 23:46 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Daniele Varrazzo @ 2021-06-28 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>; +Cc: Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Hi Devrim,
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 at 21:49, Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 20:49 ` Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
@ 2021-06-29 07:26 ` Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Denis Laxalde @ 2021-06-29 07:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: [email protected]
Devrim Gündüz a écrit :
> On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 15:05 +0200, Denis Laxalde wrote:
>> 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.
There's no python3-psycopg package in the Debian archive so it probably
won't hurt either.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
@ 2020-11-19 14:53 ` Patrick Starrenburg <[email protected]>
4 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Starrenburg @ 2020-11-19 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: psycopg
Hi
I think the straight package name "psycopg" would be good.
PS
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:46, Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
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?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Daniele
>
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-06-29 07:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-11-10 17:12 psycopg is the new psycopg3? Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:24 ` Rory Campbell-Lange <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:37 ` Ethan Furman <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:44 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:47 ` Marco Beri <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 17:59 ` Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:05 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2020-11-10 18:27 ` Vladimir Ryabtsev <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:30 ` Oleksandr Shulgin <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:44 ` Matthieu Rigal <[email protected]>
2020-11-11 08:47 ` Federico Di Gregorio <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 11:48 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-26 16:52 ` Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 13:05 ` Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 17:46 ` Karsten Hilbert <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 20:49 ` Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
2021-06-28 23:46 ` Daniele Varrazzo <[email protected]>
2021-06-29 07:26 ` Denis Laxalde <[email protected]>
2020-11-19 14:53 ` Patrick Starrenburg <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox