Encouraging 3.10 wheels on PyPI

Hello all, especially the release crew and PyPA!

How can we state more clearly that with 3.10rc1 out, projects should now release binary wheels for 3.10 on PyPI? (I’m assuming we do want to encourage that, of course.)

See the discussion for numpy, whose maintainers initially put 3.10 wheels on a different package index to clearly communicate that they are experimental. IMO that’s a mistake, and @hroncok’s write-up which convinced them is roughly something we should communicate somewhere to help 3.10 hit the ground running.

More broadly, would it be helpful to cover the development cycle and stability expectations in user-facing docs? Currently I could only find a FAQ entry, but I could expanded it to a whole page.

7 Likes

Strong +1 on me for encouraging more projects to publish binaries earlier in the release cycle.

As to how to get the message out, I don’t really have any good ideas. If something like the write-up you linked to was posted somewhere, it would probably be good to link to it in the release announcements, but I don’t know where would be the best place (for general visibility) to post such an article.

Maybe it would be worth surveying projects like numpy/scipy/matplotlib, and asking them what would have got their attention?

Perhaps this is a topic/guide that could live at https://packaging.python.org/?

3 Likes

In similar spirit I started a discussion about building conda(-forge) packages for Python 3.10 before the final release: Start Python 3.10 migration with the release candidate · Issue #1499 · conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io · GitHub This would enable the same experience for conda users as for wheel users on release.

2 Likes

cibuildwheel builds 3.10 wheels as a default since 3.10.0rc1 availability: Release v2.1.1 · pypa/cibuildwheel · GitHub

2 Likes