From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1377C2BA83 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C51F22314 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="cOeXA570" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6C51F22314 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35606 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j0BbM-0004uV-JF for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:55:52 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j0Baj-0004Se-U7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:55:15 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j0Bai-00041s-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:55:13 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:58653 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j0Bai-000409-Ez for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:55:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581112512; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Xh+z907CDf7g01QdNBywOHsWlT/svOmeToaR79Ka+mI=; b=cOeXA570hEprmxWjbW/1y/I4aT66UHfJLohuqbgyNFmuT8Fwf9JyHcqO9gQWuKfZxLCa9F +PVkW+091kKU+u9xn92wpbL7L82q/1w6DW56RLrVIlhc9VPgh3aCVZNWIu7Bb29yrFptkD cOr/9hQ5ODETjSfFKQmFcf97By16YFM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-421-x7P7ymZlN9eiRTampcoy2w-1; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:55:06 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3BDD800E21; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unused-10-15-17-6.yyz.redhat.com [10.15.17.6]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBEB790D7; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 21:54:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:54:59 -0500 From: Eduardo Habkost To: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: [PATCH] qapi: Fix code generation with Python 3.5 Message-ID: <20200207215459.GJ412524@habkost.net> References: <20200116202558.31473-1-armbru@redhat.com> <3fb3e411-c5de-fbc1-684b-c7fb1ce2ea7d@redhat.com> <875zhapnlt.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <87lfq5s19h.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lfq5s19h.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-MC-Unique: x7P7ymZlN9eiRTampcoy2w-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.81 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , thuth@redhat.com, Cleber Rosa , mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, John Snow Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 07:54:18AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > John Snow writes: > > On 1/17/20 2:07 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> John Snow writes: [...] > >>> This problem has bitten me *many* times. I'm wondering if there's a > >>> prescription that isn't just "Wait until we can stipulate 3.6+". > >>=20 > >> No clue. > >>=20 > >> 3.5 EOL is scheduled for 2020-09-13. > >> https://devguide.python.org/#status-of-python-branches > >>=20 > >> We support 3.5 because we support Debian 9. > >>=20 > >> We'd normally drop support for Debian 9 two years after Debian 10, > >> i.e. July 2021. Assuming Debian supports it that far. Whether they c= an > >> truly support Python 3.5 after uptstream EOL seems doubtful. > >>=20 > > > > We should decide whether we consider Debian LTS to be adequately > > supported, yes-or-no. > > > > We should use a rule of "two years after successor, or End-of-Support, > > whichever comes first." >=20 > Yes. >=20 > > For Debian, is end of support three years after it comes out, or is it > > when the LTS is EOL? >=20 > We need to define end-of-support for Debian: is it Debian proper or is > it Debian LTS? >=20 > : >=20 > Q) How long will security updates be provided? >=20 > The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about > one year after the next stable distribution has been released, > except when another stable distribution is released within this > year. It is not possible to support three distributions; supporting > two simultaneously is already difficult enough. >=20 > : >=20 > Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime > of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years. Debian LTS is > not handled by the Debian security team, but by a separate group of > volunteers and companies interested in making it a success. >=20 > Thus the Debian LTS team takes over security maintenance of the > various releases once the Debian Security team stops its work. As Debian LTS is maintained by a separate group, I interpret "Debian EOL" as not including LTS. Supporting Debian 9 in 2020 is already being a burden. Supporting it until mid-2021 seems pointless. >=20 > Debian 10 "Buster" was released in July 2019. Debian 9 "Stretch" will > receive security updates from Debian until mid 2020, i.e. just about > when Python 3.5 reaches EOL. LTS will attempt to support it until June > 2022. >=20 > I think we should give ourselves a bit more flexibility than the > categorical "Support for the previous major version will be dropped 2 > years after the new major version is released." At some point, the cost > of supporting old hosts exceeds the utility. We should face this > tradeoff. Agreed. --=20 Eduardo