On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I'm somewhere between -0 and -1 on the voting scale regarding > forced/long-range Python-version deprecation. But when a version > becomes sufficiently dead weight, slowing down Django's progress > like 2.3 seems to be doing, I'm +0 to +1 on dropping it with one > Django-version worth of notice. Once the decision has been made, > release one last Django version with a "this is the last version > of Django to support Python version X" notice (judicious timing > of the discussion-to-drop shortly after an official Django > release would help).
Well, the big impetus is, of course, Python 3, where the recommended upgrade process is to get to where the software runs on Python 2.6 (which supports various 3.0-style things that previous 2.x releases don't and won't) without warnings, and then use 2to3 to help manage the final transition. Along the way, of course, we'll most likely need to drop support for older Python versions and so a timeline of how we're going to do that is a good thing. Also, note that the timeline I proposed puts the final 2.6-only support something like two years in the future, which should be plenty of time for people to get ready and for the benefits of 2.6/3.0 to become sufficient incentives that we'd want to be at that point. -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
