Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
Date: 2020-11-10 17:59:58
Message-ID: CABUevExkgsHWcWEEP9yzMce+U=5xyMzcMR8X5JbonioKaNx7QQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: psycopg

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 6:12 PM Daniele Varrazzo
<daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called "psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3 transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each other. Sorry, Fibonacci...
>
> The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the requirements.txt convention. Dark times...
>
> Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as version number?

This is a not entirely unsimilar case to what pgAdmin4 is going
through right now (they started with pgadmin4 version 1.0, which then
led to a lot of confusion for people).

Thus, regardless of if you call it psycopg or psycopg3, please make
sure you start with version 3 :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Browse psycopg by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adrian Klaver 2020-11-10 18:05:57 Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
Previous Message Marco Beri 2020-11-10 17:47:39 Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?