Requires-Python upper limits

[ilayn (Ilhan Polat)]

@brettcannon

This also makes the term “requires” accurate as you’re requiring Python at least match the specified requirement to have any hopes of working. After that you hope you have what’s necessary to install and use the package (which is impossible to fully express with metadata for all scenarios w/o resorting to containers).

I have to disagree. This is a very confusing statement for anybody who has no idea what this tag is for. Everywhere in the ecosystem requirements are needed unconditionally. Even “requirements.txt” is an example of this behavior not “well at least with these might work”. Quite the contrary you must have these requirements. The word here, I repeat is unfortunate and should be explained better.

@brettcannon

Using an upper bound is prematurely guessing what may not work in the future and that goes against what requires-python is meant to express (under this definition).

I disagree again. This is not premature guessing. This has been practically demonstrated with all Python major releases both in NumPy and SciPy. We, well I should speak for myself, at least I do not share the faith or the optimism of backwards compatibility of the Python ABI and/or its standard modules as we have been actively struggling with these.