[Docutils-develop] Release 0.20 (was: Request for a patch release 0.19.1)

[Guenter M. <mi...@us...>]

Dear Docutils developers,

a happy new year to everyone!

On 2023-01-07, engelbert gruber wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2023 Matthias Geier <mat...@gm...> wrote:

>> A few months ago, I've reported a problem with sphinxcontrib-bibtex
...
>> The maintainer of sphinxcontrib-bibtex has kindly provided a patch
>> (https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/patches/195/), which has already
>> been merged in the meantime.

>> I don't know the release procedure nor the roadmap of docutils, but
>> would it be possible to create a new docutils release that contains
>> this fix (and maybe other improvements)?
...

All in all, we have fixed 4 bugs and merged 2 patches since the 
last release (see for tags "open-fixed" or "open-accepted" in
https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/_list/tickets) so YES, 
it is time for a new release.

The long list of changes and improvements (see HISTORY.txt) indicates
that this is not a pure bug-fix release, so (following our policies), the
version number will be 0.20.

Before the actual release, we should decide on the way ahead and update the
announcments of future changes
https://docutils.sourceforge.io/RELEASE-NOTES.html#future-changes

front end tools:
  - Which Docutils version will drop the ``.py`` extension?

  - Keep/drop less often required ``rst2*`` tools? Which?

  - announce switch of packaging framework

  see also https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/patches/186/
  
  Proposal [GM]: 
    - implement in 0.21
    - keep [rst2html, rst2html4, rst2html5, rst2latex, rst2man, 
            rst2odt, rst2pseudoxml, rst2s5, rst2xetex, rst2xml]

input encoding:
  - Announce new default "utf-8"?
    For which Docutils version?

  - Which Docutils version shall implement the already announced changes?
    (They are rather a bugfix, make the code simpler, a patch is ready.)

  see also https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/patches/194/
  
  Proposal [GM]:
    implement already announced changes in 0.21
    announce "utf-8" as default for 1.0
    announce removal of encoding detection for 2.0

install.py
  - Remove in which Docutils version?
    (The removal is already announced but without affected version.)
    
  Proposal [GM]:
    Remove in 0.21, announce this now.


Further decisions:    

* Can we agree on the Docutils command-line usage pattern change? ::

    - <toolname> [options] [<source> [<destination>]]
    + <toolname> [options] source [source2 [source3 [...]]]

  For the rationale, see https://clig.dev/#arguments-and-flags
  and https://sourceforge.net/p/docutils/feature-requests/36/ 
  
  If yes, announce now (documentation patch is ready).
  
  Proposal [GM]:
    Yes
  
* Drop support for older Python versions? (Which?, When?)

  Typing hints become a lot simpler (e.g. with the "|" operator) in 3.10.
  
  Proposal [GM]
    Raise requirement to >=3.9 in 0.21, announce now.
    (This is the default Python3 version in current Debian/stable,
    the most "conservative" major Linux release.)

* Future of ``core.publish_string()`` API function:

  a) Keep current behaviour ::
  
      def publish_string(source: Union[bytes, str], 
                         [...]
                         enable_exit_status=False) -> Union[bytes, str]
              
     as "wart", just improve documentation?
              
  b) Deprecate ``publish_string()`` and provide new ``publish_str()`` 
     and ``publish_bytes()`` functions?
  
  c) Return a sub-class of ``str`` with ``__bytes__()`` method that
     encodes with ``encoding`` and ``encoding_errors`` set to the
     "output_encoding" and "output_encoding_errors" setting values?
     
     - as "subtly" changed behaviour, or
     - with a new function replacing ``publish_string()``
       (find a good name!)?

  Proposal [GM]
    - explore c)
    - remove ``core.publish_bytes()`` before releasing 0.20.
    
  
Are there other open issues that should be adressed before the next release?


Thanks,
Günter