Remove upper-binding for "python-requires" #52980
Merged
+112
−123
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
potiuk
requested review from
bolkedebruin,
ashb,
jedcunningham,
gopidesupavan,
amoghrajesh,
Fokko,
mik-laj,
hussein-awala,
eladkal,
mobuchowski,
vincbeck,
jscheffl,
josh-fell and
o-nikolas
as code owners
boring-cyborg
bot
added
area:dev-tools
area:providers
backport-to-v3-0-test
Lee-W
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2025
jason810496
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2025
eladkal
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2025
Backport failed to create: v3-0-test. View the failure log Run details
You can attempt to backport this manually by running: cherry_picker e9eb481 v3-0-testThis should apply the commit to the v3-0-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running: cherry_picker --continue |
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Follow up after apache#52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Follow up after apache#52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Follow up after #52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Follow up after apache#52980 - there are still few more places where the ~= was used in requires-python.
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
Follow up after #52980 - there are still few more places where the ~= was used in requires-python.
potiuk
added a commit
to potiuk/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
) Follow up after apache#52980 - there are still few more places where the ~= was used in requires-python. (cherry picked from commit 3f6f1db) Co-authored-by: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>
potiuk
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 7, 2025
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2025
Follow up after #52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 9, 2025
HsiuChuanHsu
pushed a commit
to HsiuChuanHsu/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2025
Follow up after apache#52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose.
HsiuChuanHsu
pushed a commit
to HsiuChuanHsu/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2025
Follow up after apache#52980 - there are still few more places where the ~= was used in requires-python.
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
Follow up after #52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
Follow up after #52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose. (cherry picked from commit e9eb481)
kaxil
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2025
stephen-bracken
pushed a commit
to stephen-bracken/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2025
Follow up after apache#52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose.
stephen-bracken
pushed a commit
to stephen-bracken/airflow
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2025
Follow up after apache#52980 - there are still few more places where the ~= was used in requires-python.
82 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow up after #52967 -> from later discussions it turned out that it's not really the ~= that is wrong and ambiguous, but that just upper-binding of Python version is generally considered as a bad idea - and it's not Astral's view but it's general consensus that upper-binding of "python-requires" is bad. Since ~= implies upper-binding, simply replacing it with >= is likely the best option we can choose.
^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named
{pr_number}.significant.rstor{issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.