Skip to content
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 20 commits
Commits
Show all changes
28 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
2c73a84
Initial draft of new PHEP
sapols Jun 6, 2024
1b9ff9c
Update 'Discussions-To' link
sapols Jun 6, 2024
60fde5a
Assign PHEP number 3
sapols Jun 6, 2024
fdc4c47
Rename files to match PHEP number
sapols Jun 6, 2024
466d080
Delete old files from before rename
sapols Jun 6, 2024
46e9522
Update image path
sapols Jun 6, 2024
e83c965
Update "How to Teach This" section
sapols Jun 6, 2024
e50538c
Update new standard's text
sapols Jun 6, 2024
2fcf211
Update open issues
sapols Jun 6, 2024
6366e0e
Fix typos
sapols Jun 6, 2024
da38715
Minor text changes
sapols Jun 7, 2024
7ce321c
Remove the word "tables"
sapols Jun 7, 2024
6a6a5aa
Add an open issue about "should" vs "must"
sapols Jun 7, 2024
4c39bb6
Adopt SPEC 0's 36 month policy, use "should" not "must"
sapols Jun 11, 2024
a65acc6
Expand scope to include upstream package support policy
sapols Jul 3, 2024
d26e3b5
One sentence per line; clarify SPEC 0 adoption; clarify OS/arch suppo…
sapols Jul 17, 2024
be78dfd
Refine "How to Teach This" ideas
sapols Jul 23, 2024
f12d556
Incorporate latest feedback from comments
sapols Sep 6, 2024
c5f9734
Update Post-History
sapols Sep 6, 2024
56d9e10
Incorporate remaining feedback from comments
sapols Sep 9, 2024
226bb1d
Update gantt chart
sapols Oct 28, 2025
373fc25
Update gantt chart again
sapols Oct 28, 2025
9a46ec9
Update code and Post-History
sapols Oct 28, 2025
57833eb
Update year
sapols Oct 28, 2025
66ff910
Update title
sapols Oct 28, 2025
4156276
Fold long header per RFC-2822
sapols Oct 30, 2025
4914781
Update Gantt chart & source code
sapols Oct 30, 2025
33431b1
Acceptance: update Status, Post-History, Resolution, Revision, DOI
sapols Dec 2, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
376 changes: 376 additions & 0 deletions pheps/phep-0003.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
```
PHEP: 3
Title: PyHC Python & Upstream Package Support Policy
Author: Shawn Polson <[email protected]> <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0619-5745>
Discussions-To: https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/pull/29
Revision: 1
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/markdown; charset=UTF-8; variant=CommonMark
Created: 06-Jun-2024
Post-History: 06-Jun-2024, 11-Jun-2024, 02-Jul-2024, 17-Jul-2024, 23-Jul-2024, 05-Sep-2024, 09-Sep-2024
```

# Abstract
<a name="abstract"></a>
This PHEP recommends that all projects across the PyHC ecosystem adopt a common time-based policy for support of dependencies, inspired by [SPEC 0](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is "recommend" the right word? This gets into the question of applicability of PHEPs which I think we're still feeling out as a community, but I'd suggest stronger wording:
"This PHEP establishes a common time-based policy for support..."

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is something Julie and I should discuss but I suspect we'll end up leaving the "recommend" wording. This PHEP was originally written as more of a "must" but the first major pushback I got in the earlier comments were people requesting I soften the policy; hence why We decided this policy has to be a "should" not a "must." is the second bullet under the Resolved questions and comments section of this PR's description. It also more closely follows SPEC 0's wording which uses "recommend."

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll add that even if I started this first sentence with "This PHEP establishes a common time-based policy for support...", the word "recommends" occurs immediately in the next line. So I'd have to change that wording and all subsequently-related statements to match, which again goes against what we'd previously decided.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not a hill I intend to die on. But maybe worth putting explicitly in the rejected ideas? E.g. "it was considered making this a requirement rather than a recommendation but the community argued against because xyz"?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

Specifically, for Python versions and the upstream Scientific Python packages covered by SPEC 0, it recommends that projects:
1. Support Python versions for at least **36 months** (3 years) after their initial release.
2. Support upstream core Scientific Python packages for at least **24 months** (2 years) after their initial release.
3. Adopt support for new versions of these dependencies within **6 months** of their release.

At the time of writing, the upstream [core Scientific Python packages](https://scientific-python.org/specs/core-projects/) are: `numpy, scipy, matplotlib, pandas, scikit-image, networkx, scikit-learn, xarray, ipython, zarr`.

This policy replaces the current standard [#11](https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/blob/main/standards.md#standards) which simply mandates Python 3 support.

# Motivation
<a name="motivation"></a>
The current PyHC standard [#11](https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/blob/main/standards.md#standards), which mandates compatibility with Python 3, is outdated.
Python 3 support is virtually universal now, so it would be more beneficial to replace this standard with a policy for how to support new minor Python versions and key upstream dependencies.
[SPEC 0](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/) provides a structured support timeline that balances stability and progress, essential for software in the heliophysics community.
Adopting a similar policy ensures consistency and predictability in support timelines.
Additionally, limiting the scope of supported versions is an effective way for packages to limit maintenance burden while promoting interoperability.

# Rationale
<a name="rationale"></a>
Following [SPEC 0](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/)'s 24/36-month support timeline keeps PyHC in better sync with the broader Scientific Python community, maintaining compatibility with newer Python features and key upstream dependencies, while providing adequate time for package maintainers to adapt.
Allowing 6 months to adopt new versions ensures packages stay current with development cycles while providing a reasonable timeframe for testing and integration.

# Specification
<a name="specification"></a>
This PHEP refers to feature releases of dependencies (e.g., Python 3.12.0, NumPy 2.0.0; not Python 3.12.1, NumPy 2.0.1).

This PHEP adopts Scientific Python's [SPEC 0](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/) and specifies that all PyHC packages should:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Rather than "specifies that all PyHC packages should" I'd say "specifies that packages must". I.e. a package that is compliant with this PHEP must support that much. The question of the consequences of noncompliance feels more appropriately dealt with elsewhere (e.g. PHEP4 which I haven't looked at yet :) )

I also think involvement in PyHC is sort of implied in the context.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This goes back to my reply above about how we previously decided this policy has to be a "should" not a "must." With regard to PHEP 4, rather than thinking about it as "consequences of noncompliance" I'm thinking about it like "if you follow PHEP 3's recommendation then you are compliant for PHEP 4's sake."

Point taken about PyHC involvement being implied, but saying "PyHC" only adds one word and I like the clarity :)

1. Support Python versions for at least **36 months** (3 years) after their initial release.
2. Support upstream core Scientific Python packages for at least **24 months** (2 years) after their initial release.
3. Adopt support for new versions of these dependencies within **6 months** of their release.

At the time of writing, the upstream [core Scientific Python packages](https://scientific-python.org/specs/core-projects/) are: `numpy, scipy, matplotlib, pandas, scikit-image, networkx, scikit-learn, xarray, ipython, zarr`. If their core packages are updated, this policy applies to the updated list instead.

Since new minor Python versions are released annually every October ([PEP 602](https://peps.python.org/pep-0602/)), this effectively means that PyHC packages should be supporting about three minor Python versions at any given time.
Upstream packages have more varied release schedules, but several recent versions should typically be supported concurrently.
Providing ongoing support for older versions beyond the specified support periods is optional.

The following shows the dependency support window as of this PHEP's adoption:
![Dependency Support Window](phep-0003/dependency-support-window.svg)

PyHC packages should clearly document their dependency version policy (e.g., like [PlasmaPy](https://docs.plasmapy.org/en/stable/contributing/coding_guide.html#python-and-dependency-version-support) and [SpacePy](https://spacepy.github.io/dep_versions.html)) and be tested against the minimum and maximum supported versions.
Testing with CI against release candidates is encouraged, too, as a way to stay ahead of future releases.
Packages that use semantic versioning should consider using their version number to indicate versions that drop support for older dependencies.
There is no expectation that a package "deprecate" an older dependency before dropping support for it.
However, there is an expectation that maximum or exact requirements (e.g., `numpy<2` or `matplotlib==3.5.3`) be set only when absolutely necessary (and that issues be immediately created to remove such requirements), and packages must not require versions of any dependency older than 24 months.
Additionally, if a package has been supporting specific OS versions and CPU architectures (e.g., releasing binary [wheels](https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/discussions/package-formats/#what-is-a-wheel)), this support should continue for new OS versions and architectures to maintain the same level of support as before.

This new policy replaces the current standard [#11](https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/blob/main/standards.md#standards) in the PyHC standards document with the following new text:

> **11. Python and Upstream Package Support:** All packages should support minor Python versions released within the last 36 months (3 years) and upstream core Scientific Python packages released within the last 24 months (2 years).
Additionally, packages should support new versions within 6 months of their release (see [PHEP 3](https://github.com/heliophysicsPy/standards/pull/29)).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need this? This PHEP replaces standard 11, it doesn't create new text for it. 11 would just go away and people just need to comply with PHEP3 instead of Standard 11.

This is an excellent summary text for a potential summary document, though.

(Sorry I missed this earlier.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm gonna say yes we need this. For now, the old standards doc is still PyHC's official standards and I will replace the text of standard 11 in that doc with what's written here.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's discuss in the morning how we want to handle this; fortunately that's before the PHEP3 vote :)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@sapols I like referencing the PHEP from the standards, but do we want the link to be to the PR discussion, to the PHEPs page on the website, to the .md blob in the repo, or to the Zenodo DOI?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably the Zenodo DOI for maximum stability. I just put the PR link there first since it's all we have currently.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One of us can start the Zenodo record and reserve the DOI. Since I did that process for 1 and 2, maybe we should work together (on a Zoom maybe?) so we're more than one deep, and can make sure the instructions are clear?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@jtniehof I should be more familiar with that process than I am; a Zoom would be handy. Are you saying it's possible to "start" the Zenodo record and reserve the DOI before we have an official document to upload?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, you can reserve a DOI. I'll loop in on scheduling a time to tag up.


Lastly, if there is a Python 4 or other significant changes in dependencies, this policy will have to be reviewed in light of the community's and projects' best interests.

# Backwards Compatibility
<a name="backwards-compatibility"></a>
This policy potentially introduces backwards incompatibilities by enforcing a new support timeline, which may encourage some packages to drop support for older dependency versions sooner than planned.

# Security Implications
<a name="security-implications"></a>
There are no direct security implications of this policy.
However, ensuring packages are updated to newer dependency versions may improve security by incorporating fixes and improvements from newer releases.

# How to Teach This
<a name="how-to-teach-this"></a>
- The PyHC Tech Lead will maintain a new web page on the PyHC website detailing the support policy and include a graphical timeline of the schedule (similar to the Gantt chart above).
- Automated email reminders will be sent via the PyHC mailing list quarterly and near important drop/support dates to remind package maintainers of the schedule.

# Reference Implementation
<a name="reference-implementation"></a>
Multiple PyHC packages already follow this version support policy.
One notable example is PlasmaPy which currently [documents their SPEC 0-based policy](https://docs.plasmapy.org/en/stable/contributing/coding_guide.html#python-and-dependency-version-support) and even mentions it in comments inside their [pyproject.toml](https://github.com/PlasmaPy/PlasmaPy/blob/main/pyproject.toml) file.

## Code to generate support and drop schedules:
The following code can be used to generate support and drop schedules, including the Gantt chart above.
```python
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can it be explicitly noted that this code is the source of the included Gantt chart? Does it make more sense to put it elsewhere (in this repository or otherwise) and link it from here, as something that is live updated as necessary without having to update the PHEP?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You got it. I'll add "The following code can be used to generate support and drop schedules, including the Gantt chart above." between the header and the code.

I considered putting the code elsewhere, like in a separate file and linking to it, but decided not to for two main reasons: (1) SPEC 0 included their code in-line inside the SPEC and I liked that. (2) I honestly do not intend to formally maintain this code. Sure the dates etc will eventually become obsolete after enough time passes, but ain't nobody got time to remember to update dates in an obscure script! It's valid now and a good enough starting point for anyone who wants to use it in the future (likely only me tbh).

import requests
import collections
from datetime import datetime, timedelta

import pandas as pd
from packaging.version import Version


py_releases = {
"3.9": "Oct 5, 2020",
"3.10": "Oct 4, 2021",
"3.11": "Oct 24, 2022",
"3.12": "Oct 2, 2023",
}
core_packages = [
"numpy",
"scipy",
"matplotlib",
"pandas",
"scikit-image",
"networkx",
"scikit-learn",
"xarray",
"ipython",
"zarr",
]
plus36 = timedelta(days=int(365 * 3))
plus24 = timedelta(days=int(365 * 2))
plus6 = timedelta(days=int(365 * 0.5))

# Release data

# put cutoff 3 quarters ago – we do not use "just" -9 month,
# to avoid the content of the quarter to change depending on when we generate this
# file during the current quarter.

current_date = pd.Timestamp.now()
current_quarter_start = pd.Timestamp(
current_date.year, (current_date.quarter - 1) * 3 + 1, 1
)
cutoff = current_quarter_start - pd.DateOffset(months=9)


def get_release_dates(package, support_time=plus24):
releases = {}

print(f"Querying pypi.org for {package} versions...", end="", flush=True)
response = requests.get(
f"https://pypi.org/simple/{package}",
headers={"Accept": "application/vnd.pypi.simple.v1+json"},
).json()
print("OK")

file_date = collections.defaultdict(list)
for f in response["files"]:
ver = f["filename"].split("-")[1]
try:
version = Version(ver)
except:
continue

if version.is_prerelease or version.micro != 0:
continue

release_date = None
for format in ["%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S.%fZ", "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ"]:
try:
release_date = datetime.strptime(f["upload-time"], format)
except:
pass

if not release_date:
continue

file_date[version].append(release_date)

release_date = {v: min(file_date[v]) for v in file_date}

for ver, release_date in sorted(release_date.items()):
drop_date = release_date + support_time
if drop_date >= cutoff:
releases[ver] = {
"release_date": release_date,
"drop_date": drop_date,
"support_by_date": release_date + plus6
}

return releases


package_releases = {
"python": {
version: {
"release_date": datetime.strptime(release_date, "%b %d, %Y"),
"drop_date": datetime.strptime(release_date, "%b %d, %Y") + plus36,
"support_by_date": datetime.strptime(release_date, "%b %d, %Y") + plus6
}
for version, release_date in py_releases.items()
}
}

package_releases |= {package: get_release_dates(package) for package in core_packages}

# filter all items whose drop_date are in the past
package_releases = {
package: {
version: dates
for version, dates in releases.items()
if dates["drop_date"] > cutoff
}
for package, releases in package_releases.items()
}


# Save Gantt chart
# You can paste the contents into https://mermaid.live/ to generate the chart image.

print("Saving Mermaid chart to chart.md (render at https://mermaid.live/)")
with open("chart.md", "w") as fh:
fh.write(
"""gantt
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
axisFormat %m / %Y
title Support Window"""
)

for name, releases in package_releases.items():
fh.write(f"\n\nsection {name}")
for version, dates in releases.items():
fh.write(
f"\n{version} : {dates['release_date'].strftime('%Y-%m-%d')},{dates['drop_date'].strftime('%Y-%m-%d')}"
)
fh.write("\n")

# Print drop schedule

data = []
for k, versions in package_releases.items():
for v, dates in versions.items():
data.append(
(
k,
v,
pd.to_datetime(dates["release_date"]),
pd.to_datetime(dates["drop_date"]),
pd.to_datetime(dates["support_by_date"]),
)
)

df = pd.DataFrame(data, columns=["package", "version", "release", "drop", "support_by"])

df["quarter_drop"] = df["drop"].dt.to_period("Q")
df["quarter_support_by"] = df["support_by"].dt.to_period("Q")

dq_drop = df.set_index(["quarter_drop", "package"]).sort_index()
dq_support_by = df.set_index(["quarter_support_by", "package"]).sort_index()


print("Saving support schedule to schedule.md")


def pad_table(table):
rows = [[el.strip() for el in row.split("|")] for row in table]
col_widths = [max(map(len, column)) for column in zip(*rows)]
rows[1] = [
el if el != "----" else "-" * col_widths[i] for i, el in enumerate(rows[1])
]
padded_table = []
for row in rows:
line = ""
for entry, width in zip(row, col_widths):
if not width:
continue
line += f"| {str.ljust(entry, width)} "
line += f"|"
padded_table.append(line)

return padded_table


def make_table(sub):
table = []
table.append("| | | |")
table.append("|----|----|----|")
for package in sorted(set(sub.index.get_level_values(0))):
vers = sub.loc[[package]]["version"]
minv, maxv = min(vers), max(vers)
rels = sub.loc[[package]]["release"]
rel_min, rel_max = min(rels), max(rels)
version_range = str(minv) if minv == maxv else f"{minv} to {maxv}"
rel_range = (
str(rel_min.strftime("%b %Y"))
if rel_min == rel_max
else f"{rel_min.strftime('%b %Y')} and {rel_max.strftime('%b %Y')}"
)
table.append(f"|{package:<15}|{version_range:<19}|released {rel_range}|")

return pad_table(table)


def make_adopt_table(sub):
table = []
table.append("| | | |")
table.append("|----|----|----|")
for package in sorted(set(sub.index.get_level_values(0))):
vers = sub.loc[[package]]["version"]
minv, maxv = min(vers), max(vers)
support_bys = sub.loc[[package]]["support_by"]
support_by_min, support_by_max = min(support_bys), max(support_bys)
version_range = str(minv) if minv == maxv else f"{minv} to {maxv}"
support_by_range = (
str(support_by_min.strftime("%b %Y"))
if support_by_min == support_by_max
else f"{support_by_min.strftime('%b %Y')} and {support_by_max.strftime('%b %Y')}"
)
table.append(f"|{package:<15}|{version_range:<19}|support by {support_by_range}|")

return pad_table(table)


def make_quarter(quarter, dq_drop, dq_support_by):
table = ["#### " + str(quarter).replace("Q", " - Quarter ") + ":\n"]

# Add new versions adoption schedule if not empty
if quarter in dq_support_by.index.get_level_values(0):
table.append("###### Adopt support for:\n")
adopt_sub = dq_support_by.loc[quarter]
adopt_table = make_adopt_table(adopt_sub)
table.extend(adopt_table)

table.append("\n###### Can drop support for:\n")
sub = dq_drop.loc[quarter]
table.extend(make_table(sub))

return "\n".join(table)


with open("schedule.md", "w") as fh:
# we collect package 6 month in the past, and drop the first quarter
# as we might have filtered some of the packages out depending on
# when we ran the script.
tb = []
for quarter in list(sorted(set(dq_drop.index.get_level_values(0))))[1:]:
tb.append(make_quarter(quarter, dq_drop, dq_support_by))

fh.write("\n\n".join(tb))
fh.write("\n")

```

# Rejected Ideas
<a name="rejected-ideas"></a>
- [NEP 29](https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0029-deprecation_policy.html)'s more lenient 42-month support timeline was originally considered instead of [SPEC 0](https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/)'s 36 months, but it was ultimately decided to follow SPEC 0 because it supersedes NEP 29.
- The scope of this PHEP was originally limited to Python version support.
However, it was decided that including the upstream package support policy from SPEC 0 would better promote PyHC package interoperability and avoid the need for a future separate PHEP.
- It was considered making this a requirement rather than a recommendation (i.e., using "must" instead of "should" language) but it was decided that this policy is better suited as a recommendation.

# Open Issues
<a name="open-issues"></a>
There are no remaining open issues.

# Footnotes
<a name="footnotes"></a>
1. SPEC 0: https://scientific-python.org/specs/spec-0000/
2. NEP 29: https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0029-deprecation_policy.html

# Revisions
<a name="revisions"></a>
Revision 1 (pending): Initial draft.

# Copyright
<a name="copyright"></a>
This document is placed in the public domain or under the CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive. It should be cited as:

```
@techreport(phep3,
author = {Shawn Polson},
title = {PyHC Python Support Policy},
year = {2024},
type = {PHEP},
number = {3},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.xxxxxxx}
)
```
Loading