5 ms·

The problem is that breaking changes in widely-used packages are disrespectful to your users. See Rich Hickey’s Spec-ulation

bckr 3y ago
Would it not work to specify the version when installing the packages?
- seanc 3y ago
  Only to an extent. I can't think of a language environment where each package can have its own version of a dependency. Python certainly isn't one. So if you want any of the Flask 3.0 features you have to take the new Werkzeug, and see Flask-Login break.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    Node lets every package have its own versions of dependencies. But, imo, it’s better (less time spent fixing upgrade breakage/incentive to pick stable dependencies) in the long run to depend on latest and always update, fixing breakage as you go and only locking versions in CI so you can deploy a known bundle.
    - rgoulter 3y ago
      Of "Frequently update dependencies to latest" or "don't have to modify code which depends on others", you only get to pick one. If you're frequently updating to latest, you're on the bleeding edge; sometimes things will bleed more than others. If you're stable, you might not have the latest and greatest all the time. The attitude of expecting to always have the latest and greatest, but never have anything break, all while not paying for the effort, seems absurd to me.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
        It works pretty well, it’s like how continuous integration seemed absurd to people who spent months integrating changes and now is the standard practice. Anyways, in my experience, if you routinely use the latest and greatest versions of dependencies, over time you find that you stop using dependencies that make this painful. Anyways, I’m fine with accidental breakage. Deliberately choosing instability in the form of a major version release seems irresponsible for packages at the base of an entire ecosystem. (Absent some critical security issue that your users would have to address anyways as happened with log4j)
  - jasonpeacock 3y ago
    Rust (Cargo) supports this.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  No, because your users basically have to upgrade eventually, unless you commit to provide bug fixes (security especially) for every major version.
tetha 3y ago
I'd say the respect towards the users is displayed by the frequency of breaking changes and the overall time to migrate, through deprecation warnings and at least security maintenance of older versions. Sometimes things need to change. Speaking of that, flask 2 was released in May 21. I can't really complain about some breaking changes every 2 years or so. That's almost like a linux distribution.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > I'd say the respect towards the users is displayed by the frequency of breaking changes and the overall time to migrate, through deprecation warnings and at least security maintenance of older versions. Sometimes things need to change. A change that brings new added value to users is a case where the change needs to be made, yes. But the article's point is that the Flask changes don't seem to be doing that. They're not making breaking changes in order to introduce new features that add value for users. They're making breaking changes just because they feel like it, giving users no added value to compensate for the time and effort required to deal with the change. That's not respecting users.
  - tetha 3y ago
    I disagree with that, to be honest. At a first glance, you might think "but where is the shiny carrot that makes me upgrade?" But the thing is - we have dealt with major upgrades at work which broke many things, added many features, changed things in undocumented ways, turned the whole dependency inside out. That's a horrible experience. You end up running after ghosts: Is it the breaking change, is it a change due to a feature, what is even going on! Looking at it, Flask 3 seems to be a simple batch of several breaking changes on the roadmap for quite some time. This is good - they thought about batching these breaking changes together to have one big bad one, opposed to like 6 of them over the 2 years. And you can upgrade, and you can clearly see if one of the breaking changes causes harm to your application, without having to worry about hundreds of other changes within the same major release.
    - pdonis 3y ago
croes 3y ago
>But the Flask-Login team is not actively developing the extension anymore. So they should tie the development to an extension that isn't in further development?
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  Breaking changes shouldn’t happen with the same name: if you want to break your users, pick a new name too
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    The version number, and especially the major version, IS part of the name, so they did exactly that.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
      Then require people to `import flask3` so you can install both major versions together.
      - usrbinbash 3y ago
        No. That would break every single module that is compliant with flask 3.x and imports it with `import flask`. This simply isn't justified by the "benefit" of some old packages not having to change a single line of code. Yes, maybe in hindsight it would have been beneficial to put the major version of some packages (flask is far from the only one) directly into the package name, as a workaround for pythons inability to deal with multiple versions of the same module under the same name in one environment. But python works as it does, `import flask` is how god-knows how many projects use it, so that's how the show runs, period. If some package requires a certain version, it can pin that version in its `setup.py`. If a project requires a certain version it can pin that version in it's `requirements.txt`. If an environment requires a certain version, the admin can create a virtualenv.
        3y ago
usrbinbash 3y ago
> breaking changes in widely-used packages are disrespectful to your users No they are not. The flask team announces changes, deprecates things and uses major versions correctly. The major version change also doesn't happen frequently. If a package absolutely requires a certain version, IT CAN SPECIFY AS MUCH in its requirements. If it doesn't, tough luck.

bckr 3y ago

Would it not work to specify the version when installing the packages?

seanc 3y ago
Only to an extent. I can't think of a language environment where each package can have its own version of a dependency. Python certainly isn't one. So if you want any of the Flask 3.0 features you have to take the new Werkzeug, and see Flask-Login break.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  Node lets every package have its own versions of dependencies. But, imo, it’s better (less time spent fixing upgrade breakage/incentive to pick stable dependencies) in the long run to depend on latest and always update, fixing breakage as you go and only locking versions in CI so you can deploy a known bundle.
  - rgoulter 3y ago
    Of "Frequently update dependencies to latest" or "don't have to modify code which depends on others", you only get to pick one. If you're frequently updating to latest, you're on the bleeding edge; sometimes things will bleed more than others. If you're stable, you might not have the latest and greatest all the time. The attitude of expecting to always have the latest and greatest, but never have anything break, all while not paying for the effort, seems absurd to me.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
      It works pretty well, it’s like how continuous integration seemed absurd to people who spent months integrating changes and now is the standard practice. Anyways, in my experience, if you routinely use the latest and greatest versions of dependencies, over time you find that you stop using dependencies that make this painful. Anyways, I’m fine with accidental breakage. Deliberately choosing instability in the form of a major version release seems irresponsible for packages at the base of an entire ecosystem. (Absent some critical security issue that your users would have to address anyways as happened with log4j)
- jasonpeacock 3y ago
  Rust (Cargo) supports this.
fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
No, because your users basically have to upgrade eventually, unless you commit to provide bug fixes (security especially) for every major version.

tetha 3y ago

I'd say the respect towards the users is displayed by the frequency of breaking changes and the overall time to migrate, through deprecation warnings and at least security maintenance of older versions. Sometimes things need to change. Speaking of that, flask 2 was released in May 21. I can't really complain about some breaking changes every 2 years or so. That's almost like a linux distribution.

pdonis 3y ago
> I'd say the respect towards the users is displayed by the frequency of breaking changes and the overall time to migrate, through deprecation warnings and at least security maintenance of older versions. Sometimes things need to change. A change that brings new added value to users is a case where the change needs to be made, yes. But the article's point is that the Flask changes don't seem to be doing that. They're not making breaking changes in order to introduce new features that add value for users. They're making breaking changes just because they feel like it, giving users no added value to compensate for the time and effort required to deal with the change. That's not respecting users.
- tetha 3y ago
  I disagree with that, to be honest. At a first glance, you might think "but where is the shiny carrot that makes me upgrade?" But the thing is - we have dealt with major upgrades at work which broke many things, added many features, changed things in undocumented ways, turned the whole dependency inside out. That's a horrible experience. You end up running after ghosts: Is it the breaking change, is it a change due to a feature, what is even going on! Looking at it, Flask 3 seems to be a simple batch of several breaking changes on the roadmap for quite some time. This is good - they thought about batching these breaking changes together to have one big bad one, opposed to like 6 of them over the 2 years. And you can upgrade, and you can clearly see if one of the breaking changes causes harm to your application, without having to worry about hundreds of other changes within the same major release.
  - pdonis 3y ago

croes 3y ago

>But the Flask-Login team is not actively developing the extension anymore. So they should tie the development to an extension that isn't in further development?

fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
Breaking changes shouldn’t happen with the same name: if you want to break your users, pick a new name too
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  The version number, and especially the major version, IS part of the name, so they did exactly that.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    Then require people to `import flask3` so you can install both major versions together.
    - usrbinbash 3y ago
      No. That would break every single module that is compliant with flask 3.x and imports it with `import flask`. This simply isn't justified by the "benefit" of some old packages not having to change a single line of code. Yes, maybe in hindsight it would have been beneficial to put the major version of some packages (flask is far from the only one) directly into the package name, as a workaround for pythons inability to deal with multiple versions of the same module under the same name in one environment. But python works as it does, `import flask` is how god-knows how many projects use it, so that's how the show runs, period. If some package requires a certain version, it can pin that version in its `setup.py`. If a project requires a certain version it can pin that version in it's `requirements.txt`. If an environment requires a certain version, the admin can create a virtualenv.
      - 3y ago

usrbinbash 3y ago

> breaking changes in widely-used packages are disrespectful to your users No they are not. The flask team announces changes, deprecates things and uses major versions correctly. The major version change also doesn't happen frequently. If a package absolutely requires a certain version, IT CAN SPECIFY AS MUCH in its requirements. If it doesn't, tough luck.