I started a lazy consensus https://lists.apache.org/thread/5b3w2ofb2hjqcszkd21sg815rc0yxovt
On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 10:36 AM Avi <a...@astronomer.io.invalid> wrote: > +1, with this it will make it easier to adopt sqlalchemy 2.x > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 1:03 PM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1, I even thought we had already done it 🤔 > > > > Best, > > Wei > > > > > On Jun 23, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 to this. > > > > > > Since the tentative date for PY 3.9 deprecation is nearing (Oct 2025), > > > since we support > > > 3.10 (relatively easier migration), I do not see why we should delay > the > > > support here. > > > > > > Maintaining older versions is a nightmare in itself and becomes even > more > > > so with > > > the combinations we have in Airflow. Waiting till the last day could > also > > > lead to surprises > > > which might give us a hard time. > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > Amogh Desai > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 3:20 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > > > > >> +1. We have more and more problems because some of our dependencies > are > > >> already dropping support for 3.9 and that complicates dependency > > >> management. Also, there a few language features added in 3.10 that > could > > >> make our code better: > > >> > > >> * https://peps.python.org/pep-0636/ -> structural pattern > > >> matching (match/case) > > >> * there are few improvements to typing system that could make our > > >> (sometimes complex) type definition simpler > > >> https://peps.python.org/pep-0612/ - Parameter Specification > Variables, > > >> https://peps.python.org/pep-0613/ - explicit type aliases , > > >> https://peps.python.org/pep-0647/ - user defined type guards, > > >> https://peps.python.org/pep-0604/ - Allow writing union types as X | > Y > > >> (without from __future__ import annotations and can be used in > > isinstance) > > >> > > >> Also generally speaking migration to Python 3.10 from 3.9 for our > users > > >> should be mostly a no-op. Generally it should "just work" as there > were > > >> very little breaking changes. Similarly 3.10 -> 3.11 was easy. 3.11 -> > > 3.12 > > >> and especially 3.12 -> 3.13 is much more involved, so i'd be cautious > > here, > > >> but 3.9 - 3.10 should be easy for everyone. I think we do not lose > much > > by > > >> switching 3.1 to be 3.10+ only and the sooner we do it, the less we > > will be > > >> dragged down by 3.9. > > >> > > >> J. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 11:14 AM Pavankumar Gopidesu < > > >> gopidesupa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks elad, yes agree on this to start working on to drop as only > few > > >>> months left to Python 3.9 EOL. > > >>> > > >>> +1 > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> Pavan > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 10:03 AM Elad Kalif <elad...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>> > > >>>> I'd like to propose starting dropping support for Python 3.9. Our > > >> policy > > >>> ( > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow?tab=readme-ov-file#support-for-python-and-kubernetes-versions > > >>>> ) > > >>>> allows this (best effort item). At least for providers, it becomes > > time > > >>>> consuming to find workarounds and fixes specifically for Python 3.9 > > and > > >>> at > > >>>> the same time the extra effort invested in it prevents delivering > > >>>> capabilities that users need. Example: > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/51756 > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't think we should wait until the exact day of EOL for Python > > 3.9, > > >>> we > > >>>> are close enough and we should begin dropping support gradually. > > >>>> > > >>>> WDYT? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > > > > >
