MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+mi_8Y5L-gnio+RUs6XtfOqEbOAiyVS8y9XqYSkfLB8dnPd8w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+mi_8Y5L-gnio+RUs6XtfOqEbOAiyVS8y9XqYSkfLB8dnPd8w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:59:58 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CABUevExkgsHWcWEEP9yzMce+U=5xyMzcMR8X5JbonioKaNx7QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
To: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>
Cc: psycopg@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> 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 transiti=
on, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each other. Sorr=
y, Fibonacci...
>
> The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the co=
existence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think th=
e name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the requ=
irements.txt convention. Dark times...
>
> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as ve=
rsion 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 :)

--=20
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/