+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 > >
