Versioning policy for graphql-python tools

I think it's time to discuss a versioning and naming policy for the graphql-python tools so we can move forward.

We currently have three "generations" of the underlying core library:

• graphql-core (supports Python 2+3, old API, based on an old version of GraphQL.js)
• graphql-core-next (supports only Python >= 3.6, new API, latest features from GraphQL.js)
• graphql-core/modern branch (trys to be compatible with core-next, but support Py 2 + 3)

All of these use the package name "graphql" (like GraphQL.js) which makes things difficult, and currently have version numbers that are not (chrono)logical (core-next has a lower version number than core).

We also have a large set of other libraries that use graphql-core as their foundation: Graphene, graphql-server-core, flask-graphql, graphene-sqlalchemy etc. etc.

We want to move things forward, but not break this whole carefully assembled house of cards or create a proliferation of different forks and subvariants. So we need to talk on how to proceed regarding the versioning and naming strategy.

Some questions that come to my mind:

• Do we really want to support the graphql-core/modern branch? Yes, it looks like a reasonable strategy and @syrusakbary already put a lot of work into this, but I'm not sure if it's realistic to keep it - to me it seems too much of an effort just for supporting Python 2.7 (end of life 2020-01) and Python 3.5 (end of life 2020-09), and I see nobody who feels responsible and will maintain it. Syrus dropped out, and I want to focus on core-next. And it makes the whole story even more complicated like juggling with three balls. But I'd like to hear the opinion of others, and maybe somebody really wants to maintain it?
• When the existing tools are rebased on the new API (graphql-core-next), should they be released under a new name (like graphql-server-core-next) or should they keep the name and use a new major version number? Should new repositories be created or just separate branches in the existing repositories?
• Should we use different names instead of just "graphql" for the base package so that graphql-core and core-next can be installed in parallel?
• Or should we use the same name, maybe even release them under the same well-known name ("graphql-core") on PyPI and distinguish them by version number ranges (e.g. core = 2.x, core/modern = 3.x, core-next = 4.x+)?
• Or maybe even choose a completely different distribution name? "GraphQL.py" or "graphql" would be great, but they are already in use.

I'd like to get your thoughts and feedback here or on the Slack channel.

Issue #241 est une discussion de politique plutôt qu’une tâche d’implémentation et ne mentionne aucun fichier ni test. Examinez les trois générations de graphql-core, leurs contraintes de paquet et de versionnement, ainsi que les outils dépendants listés dans l’issue. La tâche est terminée lorsqu’un accord est trouvé sur une stratégie de nommage et de versionnement, notamment sur la manière dont les outils et branches existants doivent procéder.