Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Add python-releases.toml #4331

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner commented Mar 29, 2025

Inspired by #4314, this PR adds a transcription of every Python release since version 1.6 into a single TOML document, python-releases.toml. This is intended to serve as a single, centralised, machine-readable record of Python's release history (and future).

From this, we automatically generate a release-cycle.json file as part of the build process, to be published on peps.python.org. This replaces the version in the devguide.

The TOML document is used to (re-)generate the release schedules contained in release PEPs, initially starting with those for Python 3.8 to 3.14. The authoritative record and history remains the release PEP.

Some releases may need optional annotations or notes, which I have filled in for Python 3.8 and 3.9, but not yet back-filled.

Open questions:

  • Any better ideas for a filename than python-releases.toml?
  • Should the file live at the top level, or in the a subdirectory (as at present)?
  • Any better ideas for the metadata field names? I'm not a great fan of start-of-development and end-of-bugfix, as all the others can be said aloud as "The {first release / feature freeze / end of life} is/was on {date}".
  • Are the release managers for Pythons 1.6-2.2 correct?

A


📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4331.org.readthedocs.build/
📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4331.org.readthedocs.build/release-cycle.json

@AA-Turner AA-Turner added the meta Related to the repo itself and its processes label Mar 29, 2025
Copy link
Member

@hugovk hugovk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Partial review:

From this, we automatically generate a release-cycle.json file as part of the build process, to be published on peps.python.org. This replaces the version in the devguide.

Can we make all the data in the TOML also available in the JSON?

JSON is more universally supported, and we should make this data as widely usable as possible.

We don't necessarily need the JSON here to be an exact copy of the old devguide one; as long as the devguide can read the data it needs from this JSON to construct the diagram and tables.

Open questions:

  • Any better ideas for a filename than python-releases.toml?

Fine by me.

  • Any better ideas for the metadata field names? I'm not a great fan of start-of-development and end-of-bugfix, as all the others can be said aloud as "The {first release / feature freeze / end of life} is/was on {date}".

We could use the same names as the https://endoflife.date/ API.

The alpha https://endoflife.date/api/python.json currently uses:

  • releaseDate - initial release
  • support - end of bugfix
  • eol - end of security support / life

Or the WIP v1 API (endoflife-date/endoflife.date#2080), https://deploy-preview-2080--endoflife-date.netlify.app/api/v1/products/python uses:

  • date - initial release
  • eoasFrom - end of bugfix (end of active support)
  • eolFrom - end of security support / life

AA-Turner added 4 commits May 2, 2025 23:05
# Conflicts:
#	peps/pep-0596.rst
#	peps/pep-0619.rst
#	peps/pep-0664.rst
#	peps/pep-0693.rst
#	peps/pep-0719.rst
if sys.version_info >= (3, 11):
from release_engineering.generate_release_cycle import create_release_cycle
else:
# this function uses tomllib, which requires Python 3.11+
Copy link
Member

@merwok merwok May 3, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The comment would make more sense before line 31 or before line 30. This function here on lines 34-35 does not use tomllib!

But also, you could have a version-dependent dependency like tomli >= 1.1.0 ; python_version < "3.11" and a try/except import. But it’s up to you, I’m not well versed in release engineering to know when an older python would be used, and then whether a silent no-op is better than working or having a clear error 🙂

Copy link
Contributor

@m-aciek m-aciek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've left some minor comments.

The centralised file is 3400 lines long. I wonder, would it be possible to get all release matadata from the release PEPs, after enforcing the data structure using Sphinx/docutils features? This way the source of truth would be PEPs with machine-extractable data, and the data would be much easier to maintain/add. Then JSON/TOML would be generated in CI or locally automatically from the PEPs. Automatic script would go through all informational PEPs with release topic and look for the metadata. What do you think?

Comment on lines +22 to +23
metadata: dict[str, 'VersionMetadata']
releases: dict[str, list['ReleaseInfo']]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
metadata: dict[str, 'VersionMetadata']
releases: dict[str, list['ReleaseInfo']]
metadata: dict[str, VersionMetadata]
releases: dict[str, list[ReleaseInfo]]

nit: with from future import annotations we can simplify here

Comment on lines +1 to +2
from __future__ import annotations

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
from __future__ import annotations

nit: this isn't needed

return tuple(map(int, version.split('.')))


def version_info(metadata: VersionMetadata, /) -> dict[str, str]:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
def version_info(metadata: VersionMetadata, /) -> dict[str, str]:
def version_info(metadata: VersionMetadata, /) -> dict[str, str | int]:

PEP ID is an int


# -- Python 1.6 --------------------------------------------------------------

[metadata."1.6"]
Copy link
Contributor

@m-aciek m-aciek May 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: I wonder if version instead of metadata wouldn't make the config more obvious

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member Author

I wonder, would it be possible to get all release matadata from the release PEPs, after enforcing the data structure using Sphinx/docutils features?

We could, but this would have a couple of considerations. Most importantly, we would need to change every previous release PEP, and this wouldn't easily permit going back before 1.6 if we wanted to record the metadata for 0.9-1.5.

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to this, though, as it preserves the nice quality that the PEPs remain the authoritative source for release information.

A

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
meta Related to the repo itself and its processes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants