The future is hard to predict, but I'll add that I'm a tad nervous about this as well.
I'm completely inexperienced with channels at this time. Who else has a good grasp of the code right now and could help fix release blocking bugs if Andrew isn't available? Are we playing for any or all bug fixes? If these requests have to go through the MOSS committee, will that delay getting things fixed? Migrations delayed the 1.7 release for months, and I'd like some vote of confidence that merging this at such a late stage won't cause similar delays. I'll include the release schedule here as a reminder: May 16 Django 1.10 alpha; feature freeze. June 17 Django 1.10 beta; non-release blocking bug fix freeze. July 15 Django 1.10 RC 1; translation string freeze. 2+ weeks after RC1 Django 1.10 final (or RC 2, if needed). On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:41:48 PM UTC-4, Mark Lavin wrote: > > Major features have never been perfect, no, but they have in the past > typically gone through two paths to prove out their design/API/usefulness. > One is as an established and mature third-party app such as messages, > staticfiles, and django-secure. More recently the other has been through > the DEP process: multiple templates (Jinja) and query expressions. Channels > has done neither. > > Sorry if it seems that I've raised these issues late but I don't feel like > there has been a good place for this discussion since the DEP process was > circumvented. Most of the development for this has been in Andrew's space. > I don't feel welcome to raise a dissenting opinion as a mere lowly member > of the Django community. It's pointless for me to continue to elaborate on > the things I don't like about channels as I'm clearly in the minority and > it's going to land. All I can do now is beg for these requirements to be > optional. > > - Mark > > On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-4, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Marc Tamlyn <marc....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Major features merged into Django have generally never been as "perfect" >>> as the standards required for smaller patches. There's a recognisation of >>> the need for ongoing work, probably over the course of multiple versions, >>> in order to perfect any major new feature. The effort involved in getting a >>> patch like this to the point it can be merged at all is very significant. >>> Many major patches (composite fields, templates widgets...) have previous >>> not landed, sometimes multiple times, because they are nowhere near the >>> standard that this channels patch is. >>> >>> My feeling is that the core team agree with Andrew that this is an >>> important direction for Django, and 1.10 is the right release to include it >>> in. Bug fixes, additional tests and so on can all be added between alpha >>> and final as needed. The important thing is that we have broad agreement >>> that the feature is good, the design is right, and an understanding that >>> shortcomings will be worked on over the next year or two. >>> >>> >> I agree with this completely. I've been using Channels semi-seriously for >> 2-3 months now, and in my opinion it easily clears the bar for inclusion. >> The design is right, it's stable in production and under load, and has no >> show-stopping bugs I've been able to find. Quite bluntly, it's probably >> somewhat better than our average alpha-quality new feature. >> >> My only real concern was around performance regressions, but now that the >> WSGI "mode" hits no new code paths, that's no longer a concern. >> >> Jacob >> >> -- 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/261d8ffc-3f80-4a05-8e49-0d682aca80e6%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
