[Note: I have not read all the channels docs, sorry if some of these points are covered there.]
On a packaging note, is there a way to use django[channels] type syntax like flask does? I'm not familiar with the restrictions of this but it may remove the need for try/except imports. I'm also curious about what a "small scale" deployment of channels would look like. It has features which are useful to small sites which deploy on a single server or heroku dyno. It would be great to be able to run a complete channels stack with in memory communication with a single process start - something as easy as gunicorn wsgi.py. I know you are intending this to be possible for users not using channels, but when it has features so useful for modern web apps like tasks and websockets, getting a no-setup deploy of this working would be a huge win over celery/other systems. Obviously you would lose the no down time deploys here. I've said this in person to you, but I think a REDIS_SERVERS setting like DATABASES would be a hugely useful feature for django independently of channels, especially if it supported tests well. I'm yet to find a third party app which does this well. Testing in general is an interesting question - how do you envisage a test environment would run? Would self.client go straight to the consumer? How would you test the channel setup? Will there be test utilities to test, say, that a given message has been sent to a given channel without consuming it? You talk about being able to load balance between backend tasks and requests. Is there am easy way to not do this in a multi server setup, where say image processing is on a box with far more RAM than is needed for a request processing box? Have you considered a means of asking the channels system how much load it is under so that systems could do intelligent autoscaling? Marc On 18 Dec 2015 4:17 p.m., "Andrew Godwin" <and...@aeracode.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mark Lavin <markdla...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > You seem to be assuming I'm here to foist a brand new middle layer on >> everyone; I'm not. I'm here to make one that fits neatly into Django, that >> I think most people will want to turn on, and that provides a lot of value >> in exchange for a slight round-trip performance hit - my goal is sub-5ms, >> and preferably sub-3. If it starts being 10/20/30 milliseconds of cost, >> then we'll have to change our approach until it's acceptable. >> >> Yes that's how I read this plan and that's why I think it needs some >> clarity. I didn't mean for this to turn into a long discussion about >> performance. This was meant to be a discussion about the transition plan. >> To go back to my original message, I see no gain for existing WSGI >> applications to have this on by default, even using the in-memory >> channel, when they upgrade to 1.10 (or whenever this lands). The current >> plan reads as though it will. >> > > I agree - that was my original intention and how the current version of > channels works, but it's no longer my plan, and I should update the > integration plan to be more specific and discuss things like introducing > different HttpRequest subclasses other than WSGIRequest. > > To be clear, 1.10 might have a different request handling stack than 1.9 > that isn't so WSGI-native, but there's still going to be a way to get a > request in and a response out directly without hitting Channels. It's > almost enforced by the channels design, actually, as the entire Django URL > and view system would have to run as a single consumer there anyway. > > >> From what you are saying above this sounds more like a >> django.contrib.channels than a django.core.channels. Either way I feel the >> plan should provide more clarity in that regard. >> > > Also true - it's not immediately apparent why it shouldn't be contrib or > even entirely separate, but there are good reasons, chief among them being > that channels needs some low-level changes to the HTTP subclasses and > session framework; it's somewhat similar to migrations in this regard. The > 1.8/1.9 app versions are going to be full of monkeypatches and not perform > as well as I won't be able to eliminate all the duplicate code being run. > > I also have a philisophical belief that we should highlight the channels > model as the new "base layer" of Django - teaching people how everything > else builds on it to do view handling, socket handling, background tasks, > etc. - but that isn't at odds with direct-WSGI handling; an in-memory > backend and direct handling are basically indistinguishable from the > outside. > > I'll work on another draft that more clearly highlights WSGI and direct > request handling in the "keeping Django the same part" - hopefully that > will help make things clearer. > > >> >> Andrew, I thank you for your patience and civility in these discussions. >> I know this is something you've been working hard on and I'm not trying >> to be needlessly critical of your work. >> > > I honestly appreciate your feedback here too - it's very hard to see these > things from the outside, so it's important to have these discussions. > There's a reason I wanted to get a draft up and get comments! > > Andrew > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mark Lavin <markdla...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Anssi criticisms are fair and I feel that some of these responses are >>>> glossing over the details. >>>> >>> >>> I'm sorry if it comes across like that - a lot of these are things I've >>> been considering for a while and so I can forget to provide context. >>> >>> >>>> You've claimed this is the same or equivalent to a forked worker model >>>> but it isn't because there is no process management/link between the >>>> interface and worker and because you've chosen to make this network >>>> transparent. As much as you'd like to claim this isn't like Celery, >>>> the same issues that exist when trying to (ab)use Celery for blocking RPC >>>> calls is what you will have here. >>>> >>> >>> I never claimed this isn't like Celery; it is quite a bit like it, but >>> with specific changes (no guaranteed delivery, no single-response >>> mechanism) that make it better at throughput. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> > Then the response is dropped, the same way a WSGI worker drops a >>>> connection if it dies. >>>> >>>> It isn't entirely the same because in this channel case the worker >>>> doesn't know the client/interface dropped the connection. It's still >>>> working hard to generate a response which will sit in the response channel >>>> (Redis, memory, etc) until it expires (assuming that all backends expire >>>> channel messages). That doesn't happen in the current WSGI interface. >>>> >>> >>> True, though from what I understand of the WSGI spec you also don't know >>> the client has disconnected until you try to write out content to it. Most >>> views would still run the entire thing and make a response, only to drop it. >>> >>> There is also a http.disconnect message type planned to be implemented >>> for when a client disconnects before the response is entirely read, but >>> that's more for long-poll usage where you want to keep track of who has an >>> open connection. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> > All Django requests already involve multiple round trips to database >>>> servers, and the Redis backend at least is much quicker on the processing >>>> side. >>>> >>>> This isn't true. Database round trips are not a requirement for >>>> Django's current architecture. I'll concede that many views touch the DB >>>> but that's a choice of the developer, not Django's. When using channels the >>>> views will still need to make the same DB calls, though that processing >>>> happens at the worker. Putting Redis in between doesn't make it faster. >>>> >>> >>> Right, and channels will not be a requirement for Django's future >>> architecture. They'll just be a thing that I expect most people to turn on >>> as they provide a feature set a lot of types of sites need. And I never >>> said it would be faster - you'll see me repeatedly say channels provides no >>> performance gain - at best, it might help smooth response times with the >>> way the workers load balance jobs based on when they're free. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> > You could make the same argument about not having separate load >>>> balancers and nginx serving static files - after all, you're just adding >>>> another network roundtrip to send traffic onward from the other server to >>>> Django. >>>> >>>> There are notable differences here. These are persistent HTTP >>>> connections and don't suffer from the same problem of client/server drops >>>> previously noted. They are also cacheable in a known way allowing >>>> round-trips or bandwidth to be avoided. Many Django applications will >>>> continue to use load balancers with channels. It can't be denied that >>>> channels introduce two more network round trips that didn't exist before. >>>> Trying to paint this as "we already talk over the network, so what's a >>>> couple more" is not a compelling argument to me. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I think my tone came across wrong there. I'm more just saying >>> that it's equivalent to adding an extra layer of that kind of >>> infrastructure, in that it also uses persistent connections and should only >>> be a few milliseconds of delay, and for most Django sites a few >>> milliseconds is perhaps a percentage point of their response time. Again, >>> if someone wants higher performance, they don't have to use channels and >>> can just connect directly. >>> >>> You seem to be assuming I'm here to foist a brand new middle layer on >>> everyone; I'm not. I'm here to make one that fits neatly into Django, that >>> I think most people will want to turn on, and that provides a lot of value >>> in exchange for a slight round-trip performance hit - my goal is sub-5ms, >>> and preferably sub-3. If it starts being 10/20/30 milliseconds of cost, >>> then we'll have to change our approach until it's acceptable. >>> >>> If you don't want the new features and the resulting change in stack, >>> Django as it is now will be there for you, but if you're that sensitive to >>> performance then Django maybe isn't for you already unless you're heavily >>> modifying it. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen <akaar...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have a gut feeling this isn't going to work that well. The reasons >>>>>> include: >>>>>> - Backwards compatibility: how is a large site going to upgrade >>>>>> from 1.9 to 1.10? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> None of the core view API will change. A 1.9 codebase will boot and >>>>> work on 1.10/channels with no code changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Complexity of setup. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you elaborate? If you don't want it, you don't need to configure >>>>> anything, and if you do, for most people it's just getting a Redis server >>>>> running and pointing a setting at it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Error conditions: for example, what happens when an interface >>>>>> server sends a request to worker, and then dies (that is, the response >>>>>> channel has zero listeners). Similarly for chunked messages. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then the response is dropped, the same way a WSGI worker drops a >>>>> connection if it dies. Chunked responses will time out after a certain >>>>> period and be dropped too, in the same way that a deadlocked normal server >>>>> would. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Does the architecture really scale enough? The channel backend is >>>>>> going to be a bottleneck, it needs the ability to handle a huge amount of >>>>>> data and a huge amount of individual messages. In particular, the request >>>>>> channel is going to be contested. We know classic http scales, but is the >>>>>> same true for interface server architecture? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe it will - have you read through the sharding and scaling >>>>> plan in the docs? Channels is carefully designed to have no state in >>>>> anything but interface servers, all workers handling all message types and >>>>> queuing of messages exactly so you can scale horizontally; you can divide >>>>> a >>>>> very large site into several clusters of interfaces and workers fronted by >>>>> load balancers, and each cluster would have multiple Redis (e.g.) backends >>>>> with requests equally sharded across them using consistent hashing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Performance. Each request and response needs two additional >>>>>> network roundtrips. One to save to the channel server, one to fetch from >>>>>> the channel server. If the messages are large, this adds a lot of >>>>>> latency. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All Django requests already involve multiple round trips to database >>>>> servers, and the Redis backend at least is much quicker on the processing >>>>> side. You could make the same argument about not having separate load >>>>> balancers and nginx serving static files - after all, you're just adding >>>>> another network roundtrip to send traffic onward from the other server to >>>>> Django. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Untested architecture: does any big site use this kind of >>>>>> architecture for all http handling? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you here - see below for my justification. I've seen it >>>>> used for other things (data update networks, service calls), but not >>>>> direct >>>>> HTTP. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A realistic test for this is to push a scalable amount of scalable >>>>>> sized requests through the stack. The stack should recover even if you >>>>>> shut >>>>>> down parts of the network, any single interface server, channel backend >>>>>> server or worker server. Of course, when a server or a part of the >>>>>> network >>>>>> recovers, the stack would need to recover from that. Compare the >>>>>> performance, simplicity of setup and ability to recover from error >>>>>> conditions to a setup with only classic Django http servers. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry if this feels negative. But, you are planning to change the >>>>>> very core of what a Django server is, and I feel we need to know with >>>>>> certainty that the new architecture really works. And not only that, it >>>>>> needs to be at least as good as classic http handling for existing users. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's why a decent part of my proposal to Mozilla for funding was to >>>>> help us fund hardware and time for extensive performance and scale >>>>> testing. >>>>> I've seen this architecture work at scale before for non-HTTP traffic, and >>>>> I believe that it will work as well for HTTP and WebSockets. >>>>> >>>>> Don't get me wrong - I don't believe this is a magical panacea to >>>>> solve all problems, and we're going to have to do plenty of testing and >>>>> development work to get the solution to the level of existing HTTP >>>>> handling, but remember, it also brings positive results: >>>>> >>>>> - Downtime-less code deploys (if you stop workers, requests will just >>>>> wait for new ones to appear until they hit timeout) >>>>> - Ability to add and remove processing capacity live without >>>>> loadbalancer reconfiguration >>>>> - Lets you run different parts of the site on different Python >>>>> runtimes, if you want (e.g. one part on PyPy, one part on CPython 2, one >>>>> part on CPython 3) >>>>> - Background task processing >>>>> - And, of course, WebSockets/HTTP2/long-poll HTTP/other >>>>> non-request-response protocol support >>>>> >>>>> It's never going to be a solution that works for everyone, but the >>>>> whole nice part about channels is that, like all the best parts of Django, >>>>> you can just ignore it and not use it if you don't want it; we're not >>>>> going >>>>> to get rid of WSGI support, and the default shipping version in 1.10 isn't >>>>> going to make you find a Redis server before you can even boot it up; >>>>> it'll >>>>> just work like it does now, with extra flexibility there if you want to go >>>>> turn it on and read through the next part of the tutorial/docs. >>>>> >>>>> I don't expect to get this past the community, core and technical >>>>> board and approved into a release until it's proven itself to run and work >>>>> at scale, and I already have several offers of testbeds to help prove this >>>>> out with realistic web loads, which we can combine with synthetic load >>>>> tests. >>>>> >>>>> Put it this way - I do not see any other way to handle WebSockets that >>>>> is as feasible as this. Most solutions either require us to run the whole >>>>> of Django in an async Python environment, which comes with its own set of >>>>> issues, or they're more stateful proxy servers or run-alongside-servers >>>>> that don't seem to have a story for scaling them to hundreds of thousands >>>>> of connections without blowing up every packet received into HTTP >>>>> requests. >>>>> >>>>> I think Django absolutely has to adapt to the modern web environment >>>>> and move away from just rendering templates when browsers request them, >>>>> and >>>>> this to me is part of that. If there are other solutions to the same >>>>> problems I think we should consider them as well; I've just not run across >>>>> any that work as well in the two years I've been planning this out before >>>>> I >>>>> brought it out to be talked about. >>>>> >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, that is the idea. While it obviously adds overhead (a >>>>>>> millisecond or two in my first tests), it also adds natural load >>>>>>> balancing >>>>>>> between workers and then lets us have the same architecture for >>>>>>> websockets >>>>>>> and normal HTTP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (The interface server does do all the HTTP parsing, so what gets >>>>>>> sent over is slightly less verbose than normal HTTP and needs less work >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> use, but it's not a big saving) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen < >>>>>>> akaar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the idea a large site using classic request-response >>>>>>>> architecture would get the requests at interface servers, these would >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> push the HTTP requests through channels to worker processes, which >>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>> the message and push the response through the channel backend back to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> interface server and from there back to the client? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Anssi >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Andrew Godwin <and...@aeracode.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To address the points so far: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - I'm not yet sure whether "traditional" WSGI mode would actually >>>>>>>>> run through the in memory backend or just be plugged in directly to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> existing code path; it really depends on how much code would need to >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> moved around in either case. I'm pretty keen on keeping a raw-WSGI >>>>>>>>> path >>>>>>>>> around for performance/compatability reasons, and so we can hard fail >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> you try *any* channels use (right now the failure mode for trying to >>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>> channels with the wsgi emulation is silent failure) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Streaming HTTP responses are already in the channels spec as >>>>>>>>> chunked messages; you just keep sending response-style messages with >>>>>>>>> a flag >>>>>>>>> saying "there's more". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - File uploads are more difficult, due to the nature of the worker >>>>>>>>> model (you can't guarantee all the messages will go to the same >>>>>>>>> worker). My >>>>>>>>> current plan here is to revise the message spec to allow infinite size >>>>>>>>> messages and make the channel backend handle chunking in the best way >>>>>>>>> (write to shared disk, use lots of keys, etc), but if there are other >>>>>>>>> suggestions I'm open. This would also let people return large http >>>>>>>>> responses without having to worry about size limits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - Alternative serialisation formats will be looked into; it's up >>>>>>>>> to the channel backend what to use, I just chose JSON as our previous >>>>>>>>> research into this at work showed that it was actually the fastest >>>>>>>>> overall >>>>>>>>> due to the fact it has a pure C implementation, but that's a year or >>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>> old. Whatever is chosen needs large support and forwards >>>>>>>>> compatability, >>>>>>>>> however. The message format is deliberately specified as JSON-capable >>>>>>>>> structures (dicts, lists, strings) as it's assumed any serialisation >>>>>>>>> format >>>>>>>>> can handle this, and so it can be portable across backends. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - I thought SCRIPT_NAME was basically unused by anyone these days, >>>>>>>>> but hey, happy to be proved wrong. Do we have any usage numbers on it >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> know if we'd need it for a new standalone server to implement? It's >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> not hard to add it into the request format, just thought it was one of >>>>>>>>> those CGI remnants we might finally be able to kill. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen < >>>>>>>>> akaar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 17, 2015, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - I share Mark's concern about the performance (latency, >>>>>>>>>>> specifically) >>>>>>>>>>> implications for projects that want to keep deploying old-style, >>>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>>> all the new serialization that would now be in the request path. >>>>>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>>>> some further discussion of this, with real benchmark numbers to >>>>>>>>>>> refer >>>>>>>>>>> to, is a prerequisite to considering Channels as a candidate for >>>>>>>>>>> Django >>>>>>>>>>> 1.10. To take a parallel from Python, Guido has always said that >>>>>>>>>>> he >>>>>>>>>>> won't consider removing the GIL unless it can be done without >>>>>>>>>>> penalizing >>>>>>>>>>> single-threaded code. If you think a different approach makes >>>>>>>>>>> sense here >>>>>>>>>>> (that is, that it's OK to penalize the simple cases in order to >>>>>>>>>>> facilitate the less-simple ones), can you explain your reasons >>>>>>>>>>> for that >>>>>>>>>>> position? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We would also need some form of streamed messages for streamed >>>>>>>>>> http responses. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is it possible to handle old-style http the way it has always >>>>>>>>>> been handled? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Anssi >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" >>>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1Gz%3DaYMLyFW2da2C6Wo_-c_V2T_4p6K9eh0vwrKB91dKw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1Gz%3DaYMLyFW2da2C6Wo_-c_V2T_4p6K9eh0vwrKB91dKw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> Visit this group at >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1upm8N8tOhCdAgPEbYbBO6MU%2BmnEQ%3D%3Dp6EmW75%3DbNXHkfg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1upm8N8tOhCdAgPEbYbBO6MU%2BmnEQ%3D%3Dp6EmW75%3DbNXHkfg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1FOVa6K-MMsZ9vACfcw0w0KHwdCXJ2vxu7_Y5Q9PHJ6Gg%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1FOVa6K-MMsZ9vACfcw0w0KHwdCXJ2vxu7_Y5Q9PHJ6Gg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> Visit this group at >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uoCX67D4E5J8n_wOo3VvPVjZYVnOG%2BshX6oDQk3zgu3vw%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uoCX67D4E5J8n_wOo3VvPVjZYVnOG%2BshX6oDQk3zgu3vw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers >>>>>> . >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1E4HLL5v-z4u7temEDh6WfBpa9mcOXOf%3D-nSpKWRV%3DJsA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CALMtK1E4HLL5v-z4u7temEDh6WfBpa9mcOXOf%3D-nSpKWRV%3DJsA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/CZPvEE0WPi4/unsubscribe >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>> django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uoUc7_-4XbterzhriSB9vLhJ3DLfqrSUH9iyMNyVwSD7A%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uoUc7_-4XbterzhriSB9vLhJ3DLfqrSUH9iyMNyVwSD7A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAG2P6nRSPW04heEaDj2rgNu77kgKNb9s1jP_kiL1M5P4XQ12jg%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAG2P6nRSPW04heEaDj2rgNu77kgKNb9s1jP_kiL1M5P4XQ12jg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/CZPvEE0WPi4/unsubscribe >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uo8p3R-8pZBk%3DdbhYrqiWdjzN8f%2BbTz4-r9yEZUb0KBeQ%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1uo8p3R-8pZBk%3DdbhYrqiWdjzN8f%2BbTz4-r9yEZUb0KBeQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAG2P6nS68Zd1zU3o898VTEtkOVgp_YVYDA%2B_axh%3D0u_EjzdaZA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAG2P6nS68Zd1zU3o898VTEtkOVgp_YVYDA%2B_axh%3D0u_EjzdaZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1urUZvhN49C%3D0GAUK6YxjiyUp5NJpE58j7qgtke6fekvNg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1urUZvhN49C%3D0GAUK6YxjiyUp5NJpE58j7qgtke6fekvNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMwjO1EP5Hjx0sj5eQxV83ZEyZ0-ATPNP1RQn2VuxEizEt96yA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
