> Clearly it won't be 100% of libraries that "upgrade". I'm wondering how many libraries with binary extensions are actually in common use. Like, maybe 90% of

> Clearly it won't be 100% of libraries that "upgrade". I'm wondering how many libraries with binary extensions are actually in common use. Like, maybe 90% of python projects use a subset of a few hundred such packages? That's a hassle if you maintain one of those packages, and will be a bit disappointing if in 5 years' time you're still depending on GIL-reliant packages. But it's nothing like the chaos of the python 2-3 changes, where ~100% of python files in every package and end-user project had to be fixed. I only learned about this this morning though, it's very possible I'm missing something. A lot of the concerns people are raising look a bit overblown to me. I take the point that after so many abortive GIL removal attempts, it's harder to be confident this one will happen. But having the go-ahead from the steering council seems like a good indicator this one has traction.