On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 05:01:03PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > If there are people with the expertise to help upstream update > > bytecode and parso (and probably several other low-level packages) for > > 3.11 so that the software that depends on them works with 3.11, then > > fine. (And it is a non-trivial update, AFAICT.) But until then, I'd > > be very reluctant to make 3.11 the default. > > Have you tried this PR? > https://github.com/MatthieuDartiailh/bytecode/pull/107
As you can see by reading it, there is still at least one blocking point (to use Matthieu's language), and Matthieu is the core bytecode developer. Once that is sorted, then pydevd needs to be updated to use it. But this is far outside my expertise, and I'm not going to apply a huge patch that I don't understand and that is known to still be buggy. So I'm just going to have to wait. I don't know the current state of parso; it would be interesting to see whether parso 0.8.3 successfully works under 3.11, but that is Piotr Ożarowski's package (not under the Python team); he is active, but has not yet uploaded this newer version. > > I haven't decided what to do with packages which now FTBFS under 3.11 > > because of this. Should we just let them fall out of testing (that > > certainly includes spyder, and quite possibly ipython as well)? > > Or should we mark them as X-Python3-Version: << 3.11 so they can stay in > > testing as long as Python 3.10 is the default? > > I don't think this is the way. I'm sorry, I don't understand - which is not the way? > > If we make 3.11 the > > default, these packages will likely not be in bookworm, which might > > upset our users even more. > > We're not there yet. We have until January to fix, and we haven't decided > yet if 3.11 will be the default. Fair enough. But I still don't know what to do in the meantime with the spyder ecosystem besides either wait for upstream to sort bytecode and pydevd and Piotr (and possibly upstream) to sort parso, or to mark them as Python 3.10 only. Best wishes, Julian
