On 30 kesä, 22:25, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: > Before we do get too deep into this, however, I want to talk about > this "Django 2.0" thing: > > Clearly there will be something called "Django 2.0" at some point -- > after 1.9, if we get there, comes 2.0. However, I think it would be a > mistake to make "Django 2.0" backwards-incompatible. We've seen > countless examples -- Perl 6, Python 3, Rails 3, ... -- that these > sorts of "breaks from the past" really alienate and frustrate the > community. Over the years we've actually gotten really good at > balancing forward motion with stability. Our reputation as a stable, > reliable platform is something I'm intensely proud of. > > It's going to take a lot of work to convince me of the value of a > "break from the past" sort of approach. If this can't be done in a way > that promises a smooth upgrade path... I'm not sure it's worth doing.
I am sure doing Django 2.0 would result in a _long_ development cycle. Off my head some candidates for 2.0: - Template layer - ORM - Admin Probably a lot of things in contrib, some things in model layer, I am sure there are a couple of issues in forms and so on. How long till we get every part upgraded to 2.0 and get the code polished to release quality? -1 to finding that out :) I wonder if it would be possible to support both a new version (new_models?) and old version side by side. After long enough deprecation period, kick the old code out of core, maybe into a separate repository where interested people could pick it up if they still need it. - Anssi -- 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
