Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3? - Mailing list psycopg

From Patrick Starrenburg
Subject Re: psycopg is the new psycopg3?
Date
Msg-id CA+6L-Z8CzK=42PQTeGda7WCS2fXHA1_Cnrr-XQYygKfnBGzacA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to psycopg is the new psycopg3?  (Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>)
List psycopg
Hi

I think the straight package name "psycopg" would be good.

PS

On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:46, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,

I have received some concerned voices in regard to have a package called "psycopg3". I guess many have been burned out by the Python 2 to 3 transition, and now it's not a happy pair of number to see next to each other. Sorry, Fibonacci... 

The rationale behind having the 2 in the package name was to allow the coexistence between v1 and 2. But now that nobody uses v1 anymore, I think the name can be considered free. I believe it even predates pypi and the requirements.txt convention. Dark times...

Anyone against using "psycopg" as package name, and starting from 3 as version number?

Cheers,

-- Daniele 

psycopg by date:

Previous
From: Daniele Varrazzo
Date:
Subject: psycopg3 COPY support
Next
From: Patrick Starrenburg
Date:
Subject: 'Psycopg2.errors' not referenced in packaged