<div dir="ltr">If we're making python recommendations to people, they likely have little experience with Python at all. Given that, I'd say put them on python3 to avoid perpetuating all the technical debt in the python world, especially the scientific realm. Having a split between which python version Bioython runs better on to me reflects a deficiency in unit testing, and emphasizes the need to use something like tox for more robust testing across multiple environments.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:38 AM, PD Dr. Markus Piotrowski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Markus.Piotrowski@ruhr-uni-bochum.de" target="_blank">Markus.Piotrowski@ruhr-uni-bochum.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
Am 04.10.2015 um 20:35 schrieb Tiago Rodrigues Antao:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 20:10:29 +0200<br>
Markus Piotrowski <<a href="mailto:Markus.Piotrowski@ruhr-uni-bochum.de" target="_blank">Markus.Piotrowski@ruhr-uni-bochum.de</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Actually, it's not our job to nudge people towards Python 3, our<br>
recommendations should be given with regard to Biopython stability.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It is our job, if we decide, as a community, that we prefer to do this.<br>
There is no reason at all to be "neutral" on this. Actually if we are<br>
"neutral" then we really should support Python 1 maybe? And Python 2.1,<br>
2.2 and 2.3. We have never been "neutral" in the past with 2.x<br>
deprecations.<br>
</blockquote></span>
You miss the point. I have no problems dropping support for Python 2 at all (I would support immediately dropping support for Python 2.6), for the sake of Biopython *development*.<br>
However, actually Biopython runs fine on 2.7 and probably it runs better on 2.7 than on 3.5. As Peter has said, we cannot guarantee 100% compatibility with Python 3. If we *recommend* using Python 3.5, we make an implicit statement that Biopython runs probably worse on Python 2.6/2.7.<br>
That's my point. And possibly an over-valuation of the word 'recommend'. ('Oh, your sequencing failed? Haven't you prepared the sample following our recommendations?'). ;-)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Markus</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Biopython-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Biopython-dev@mailman.open-bio.org" target="_blank">Biopython-dev@mailman.open-bio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>