[Biopython-dev] Updating Biopython requirements wording to recommend Python 3

[Christian Brueffer]

On 2015-10-02 11:11, Peter Cock wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Michiel de Hoon <mjldehoon at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is there a reason that Biopython should recommend using Python 3
>> (e.g. are there any modules that work with Python 3 but not with Python 2)?
>> If not, I don't think we should make this recommendation.
>> -Michiel
>
> If anything there could be some less well used corners of the code
> which were written and work on Python 2, but still need tweaking
> for Python 3. Hopefully not, but you never know.
>
> When I wrote "We currently recommend using Python 3.5 ..." I was
> thinking of the wider Python ecosystem as a whole and long term.
> Python 2 is going away, so for newcomers and new projects we
> really should now encourage starting with Python 3.
>
> Did you like Eric's phrasing Michiel?:
>
> "We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from http://www.python.org.
> Biopython will also work with earlier Python versions 3.4, 3.3, and the
> legacy Python versions 2.7 and 2.6."
>
> We could swap "recommend" with "suggest" to make this less
> forceful?
>

I like Eric's phrasing, and would stick with "recommend".  While I'm 
still mostly using Python 2.7, I think it's a good idea to start nudging 
people towards Python 3.

Chris