This document describes a change in the release calendar for Pythonstarting with Python 3.9. This change accelerates the release cadencesuch that feature versions are released predictably every twelve months,in October every year.
This PEP proposes that Python 3.X.0 will be developed for around17 months:
After the release of Python 3.X.0, the 3.X series is maintained forfive years:
Note: 2 years of full support start withPython 3.13. Python versions3.9 - 3.12 operate on a calendar with 1½ year of full support, followedby 3½ more years of security fixes.
Feature development of Python 3.(X+1).0 starts as soon asPython 3.X.0 Beta 1 is released. This creates a twelve-month deltabetween Python feature versions.

Figure 1. Consequences of the annual release cycle on the calendar.
In comparison, if this PEP is rejected and Python keeps the currentrelease schedule:
The current policy around breaking changes assumes at least two releasesbefore a deprecated feature is removed from Python or a__future__behavior is enabled by default. This is documented inPEP 387.
This PEP proposes to keep this policy ofat least two releasesbefore making a breaking change.
The current wording ofPEP 13 states that “a new council is electedafter each feature release”. This PEP proposes to keep this policyas it will lead to a consistent election schedule.
The current undocumented convention is for a single Release Manager tohandle two feature releases of Python. This PEP proposes to keep thispolicy, allowing for the term to be extended to more releases withapproval from the Steering Council and the Cabal of Release Managers.
In particular, since this PEP is authored by the active Release Managerand its effect would shorten the term of the Release Manager, the authoris open to managing the release of a third feature release to compensatefor the disruption.
This change provides the following advantages:
Adopting an annual release calendar allows for natural switching tocalendar versioning, for example by calling Python 3.9 “Python 3.20”since it’s released in October ‘20 and so on (“Python 3.23” would be theone released in October ‘23).
While the ease of switching to calendar versioning can be treated asan advantage of an annual release cycle, this PEP does not advocate foror against a change in how Python is versioned. Should the annualrelease cycle be adopted, the versioning question will be dealt with ina separate PEP.
This change does not shorten the currently documented support calendarfor a Python release, both in terms of bugfix releases and securityfixes.
This change does not accelerate the velocity of development. Python isnot going to become incompatible faster or accrue new features faster.It’s just that features are going to be released more gradually as theyare developed.
Consequently, while this change introduces the ability for users toupgrade much faster, it does not require them to do so. Say, if theyupgrade every second release, their experience with Python is going tobe similar to the current situation.
This requires changes to how integrators, like Linux distributions,release Python within their systems.
This eventually increases the testing matrix for library and applicationmaintainers that want to support all actively supported Python versionsby one or two:

Figure 2. Testing matrix in the 18-month cadence vs. the 12-month
The “extended bugfix support at the discretion of the Release Manager”stage of the current release cycle is not codified. If fact,PEP 101currently states that after the release of Python 3.(X+1).0 only onelast bugfix release is made for Python 3.X.0. However, in practice atleast the last four versions of Python 3 overlapped with stable releasesof the next version for around six months. Figure 2 is includingthis information to demonstrate that overlap between stable versionreleases with the 12-month release cadence will be nothing new.
Although identified dependent policies were addressed in a previoussection, it is entirely possible there are some other areas whichimplicitly rely on the timing of Python releases.
This is undesirable both for core developers and end users. From theperspective of the core developer:
More importantly, from the perspective of the user:
This was originally proposed inPEP 596 and rejected as both tooirregular and too short. This would not give any of the benefits ofa regular release calendar but it would shorten all development phases,especially the beta + RC phases. This was considered dangerous.
While this would make the release calendar a bit cleaner,it would makeit very hard for external distributors like Fedorato release the newest version of Python as soon as possible. We areadjusting Python’s calendar here in the hope that this will enableFedora to integrate the newest version of Python with the newest versionof Fedoraas both are being developed which makes both projectsbetter.
This is described inPEP 598. This proposal includes non-standardconcepts like the “incremental feature release” which makes it hardto understand. The presented advantages are unclear while theunfamiliarity of the scheme poses a real risk of user and integratorconfusion.
Each version of Python is effectively long-term support: it’s supportedfor five years, with the first eighteen months allowing regular bugfixes and security updates. For the remaining time security updates areaccepted and promptly released.
No extended support in the vein of Python 2.7 is planned going forward.
This document is placed in the public domain or under theCC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.
Source:https://github.com/python/peps/blob/main/peps/pep-0602.rst
Last modified:2024-05-28 05:47:01 GMT