Closed cdeil closed 9 years ago
@cdeil, I think we should support python 2+3 for the first version. I'm probably fine with switching to python 3 only in a later version. The code is already 2 compatible and we could use all the help we can get testing it and getting feedback, so this would definitely argue for keeping 2 support for now, to get the larger user pool. Many observatories are still stuck in 2-land.
Subaru is in the early stages of transition. Some apps like ginga are already 3 compatible, but there is a lot of 2 code left. I think for our use of this astroplan code 3 would be fine, but I'd still argue for 2 support for the reasons I outlined above.
I'm opposed to dropping 2. A bunch of astronomers that I know work in 2 and don't see a reason to switch to 3 (see astrofrog's post on the state of the migration), and I don't think they'd switch for astroplan (or for anything, frankly).
There doesn't seem to be support for dropping Python 2 support at this time. Closing this issue for now ... but I might re-open it and ask again in a year or two...
I propose we drop Python 2 support for
astroplan
, i.e. make it a Python 3 only package from the start (i.e. the 0.1 release).This is not a joke, I think it's about time for new packages. The great migration has begun and I started my first Python 3-only package a month ago (ctapipe) and the sky hasn't fallen on my head.
I don't want to argue and list pros / cons for this decision, I think most of us are well-aware. Just one comment: The biggest con is that some potential users are on Python 2 now and for this reason might not use astroplan for now. I think that's OK, they'll start using it in the coming years after they've moved to Python 3.
@astroplanners/astroplanners-contributors – What do you think?
@ejeschke – Do you need Python 2 support for Subaru?