David Blaikie via llvm-dev
2020-Oct-13 18:49 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Python 2 / Python 3 status, final step(s)
*thumbs up* Re: out of date buildbots: maybe stage the shebang changes in a time/way that's easy to rollback (or even intended to rollback after a small time window (few hours) off-peak) to flush out the buildbots. Then after that rollout, go over the buildbot failures and follow-up with buildbot owners to get them cleaned up before a more intended-to-stick rollout is done. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 7:18 AM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Yay, thanks for persevering with this migration! > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Serge Guelton via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Now that LLVM 11.0.0 has been released, it's time to prepare for the >> final step >> envisionned in the previous RFC named *[RFC] Python 2 / Python 3 status* >> [0], >> ie. requiring Python3.6 for LLVM 12.0.0, to be released in 2021. >> At least Fedora already only ships Python3 and we didn't have much bugs >> reported >> wrt. Python compatibility for the LLVM toolchain. >> >> Indeed, all Python scripts should now be at least compatible with both >> python2 (py2) >> and python3 (py3), some of them already are already py3 only. >> >> The build system still depends on Python in a few place, but it explicitly >> mentions Python3_EXECUTABLE, and the main dependency (llvm-build) is >> currently >> being removed in D89142. >> >> The shebangs have already been harmonized in D83857: some mention >> /usr/bin/env >> python, some mention /usr/bin/env python3, and none mention python2 >> anymore. It >> would be great to have all script use the same shebang, PEP394 [1] makes >> it >> (relatively) clear that in our case, explicitly requiring python3 is the >> way to >> go. >> >> So basically, next step would be to update the documentation, remove the >> Python2 >> fallback in root CMakeLists.txt and update shebangs. >> >> Anyone seeing an issue with that approach? I'm still a bit worried about >> buildbots still running on py2 (?) >> >> Serge >> >> [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138730.html >> [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201013/0b1c0228/attachment.html>
Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev
2020-Oct-19 19:34 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Python 2 / Python 3 status, final step(s)
Sounds good. In LLDB we have a slightly different timeline for the test suite (outlined in http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2020-August/016388.html) but everything else aligns with the plan here. I already removed the fallback to Python 2 in preparation for the 12.0 release. On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:49 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> *thumbs up* > > Re: out of date buildbots: maybe stage the shebang changes in a time/way > that's easy to rollback (or even intended to rollback after a small time > window (few hours) off-peak) to flush out the buildbots. Then after that > rollout, go over the buildbot failures and follow-up with buildbot owners > to get them cleaned up before a more intended-to-stick rollout is done. > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 7:18 AM James Y Knight via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Yay, thanks for persevering with this migration! >> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:04 AM Serge Guelton via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Now that LLVM 11.0.0 has been released, it's time to prepare for the >>> final step >>> envisionned in the previous RFC named *[RFC] Python 2 / Python 3 status* >>> [0], >>> ie. requiring Python3.6 for LLVM 12.0.0, to be released in 2021. >>> At least Fedora already only ships Python3 and we didn't have much bugs >>> reported >>> wrt. Python compatibility for the LLVM toolchain. >>> >>> Indeed, all Python scripts should now be at least compatible with both >>> python2 (py2) >>> and python3 (py3), some of them already are already py3 only. >>> >>> The build system still depends on Python in a few place, but it >>> explicitly >>> mentions Python3_EXECUTABLE, and the main dependency (llvm-build) is >>> currently >>> being removed in D89142. >>> >>> The shebangs have already been harmonized in D83857: some mention >>> /usr/bin/env >>> python, some mention /usr/bin/env python3, and none mention python2 >>> anymore. It >>> would be great to have all script use the same shebang, PEP394 [1] makes >>> it >>> (relatively) clear that in our case, explicitly requiring python3 is the >>> way to >>> go. >>> >>> So basically, next step would be to update the documentation, remove the >>> Python2 >>> fallback in root CMakeLists.txt and update shebangs. >>> >>> Anyone seeing an issue with that approach? I'm still a bit worried about >>> buildbots still running on py2 (?) >>> >>> Serge >>> >>> [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-January/138730.html >>> [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20201019/783a1ef4/attachment.html>