Re: django-formtools is neglected/unmaintained

[eric . verner]

Thanks so much, Tim. I really appreciate it.

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:05:53 PM UTC-7, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> django-formtools 2.0 is now available on PyPI.
>
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 5:29:43 AM UTC-5, Romain Garrigues wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I'm currently investing some efforts to clean and make some django 
>> packages up-to-date.
>> After django-dirtyfields (https://github.com/romgar/django-dirtyfields), 
>> I'm now beginning to work on django-model-utils (
>> https://github.com/carljm/django-model-utils) where there is some work 
>> to update it, but after this, and if nobody else had enough time to have a 
>> look, I can try to contribute on django-formtools.
>>
>> Romain.
>>
>> Le mercredi 4 janvier 2017 23:20:40 UTC, eric@datalyticsolutions.com 
>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot, Tim! If you think I could help, then let me know. 
>>> Otherwise, I'll just stay out of your way :)
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 4:02:29 PM UTC-7, Tim Graham wrote:

 According to https://github.com/django/django-formtools/issues/75, 
 there's a change in master that's needed for 1.10 compatibility.

 I'll try to do a release if I can get access to the PyPI record. I 
 pinged the owner (jezdez) in #django-dev about it.

 On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 5:51:56 PM UTC-5, Adam Johnson wrote:
>
> 1) Tim added testing on Django 1.10 in July 2016, it seems to work? 
> https://github.com/django/django-formtools/commits/master
> 2) New contributors are always welcome
> 3) I don't know of other packages, you can check 
> https://djangopackages.org/
> 4) It's true that many websites are built with pure JS frontends these 
> days, there are probably more recently developed tools there
>
> On 4 January 2017 at 22:42,  wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> You make some good points. Basically, my situation is that I want to 
>> use some features of Django v1.10 for a project at my company, but I am 
>> unable to because I use django-formtools for a FormPreview, and it is 
>> not 
>> compatible with v.1.10. I am also worried about using Django for future 
>> projects given that there seem to be problems finding people to 
>> contribute 
>> to what seems to be an important package. Whether I contribute depends 
>> on 
>> the answers to several questions: (1) How much work is necessary to get 
>> formtools compatible with v1.10? (2) Would my contribution make a 
>> difference, given that I would be a new contributor, and I don't have a 
>> ton 
>> of time to give? (3) Is there another package that people are using for 
>> FormPreviews that I'm not aware of? I couldn't find anything else that 
>> was 
>> more up-to-date than django-formtools. (4) Is this a sign that people 
>> simply aren't using Django for this task, and are maybe instead using 
>> some 
>> kind of Javascript library instead? If you have any information these 
>> questions, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 6:04:59 PM UTC-7, Tim Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the situation bad enough that you would volunteer to maintain the 
>>> project?
>>>
>>> The Django team is a collection of volunteers (excepting me) who 
>>> work on Django. It seems that no one on the team or reading this 
>>> mailing 
>>> list has time or interest in maintaining the project. We need to 
>>> clarify 
>>> the maintenance status, but that doesn't necessarily mean continuing 
>>> the 
>>> project in its current form if there's little interest.
>>>
>>> Absent volunteers, another idea could be for an interested 
>>> freelancer to start a kickstarter-style fundraiser to raise money to 
>>> fund 
>>> some time to work on some issue in the backlog. At least it would help 
>>> determine if any users think the project is worth paying for.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 7:28:59 PM UTC-5, 
>>> eric@datalyticsolutions.com wrote:

 This is really bad. django-formtools used to be part of the core of 
 Django. Is this getting the attention it deserves from the Django 
 Foundation?

 On Monday, November 28, 2016 at 9:55:48 PM UTC-7, Asif Saifuddin 
 wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> In case there is lack of active maintainers for the project then 
> you could add me to the list of maintainers. I do contribute to 
> django eco 
> system regularly.
>
> my github activities:
>
> github.com/auvipy
>
>
> And about moving to jazzband, I do take part in django-admin2 
> maintenance there with the two other old maintainers, The fact is 
> moving it 
> to jazzband haven't 

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Cheng Chi]

+1 on type hinting. PyCharm always gives me 20+ options when I want to jump 
to the definition of modelInstance.save() method (or any other method with 
a common name like save), which makes me really miss static type 
languages... As the framework for perfectionists with deadlines, I think 
type hinting (with IDE) does help a lot on productivity for many developers 
who are not experts on Django core.

Since django core is considerably mature and no major new feature is on the 
horizon currently, I'd like to see more python language features adopted as 
django evolving.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 6:43:46 PM UTC+11, roboslone wrote:
>
> I do not think this matters, first off there is no commitment from our 
> side on type hinting or anything. We do not have any DEP or something 
> related and didn't even discuss if we actually want type hinting. 
> Personally I am kinda against it anyways, since it clutters the code for 
> not much gain. So if we were to do it, I would prefer stub files anyways, 
> in which case we won't depend on any python version as far as I understood 
> that.
>
>
> As Django user, I have to say type hinting would help a lot to understand 
> how things work in Django without looking at docs. It could save a lot of 
> time for beginners, too. Also I have to mention, that PyCharm (which is the 
> most popular IDE for Python, I believe) has support for type hinting and 
> could help you avoid many problems before even firing up a server.
>
> In my opinion not adding type hints in Django 2.0 would be a mistake.
>
> "Django 2.0 will be the last version of Django to support Python 3.4. This 
> allows those running older operating systems with Python 3.4 (such as 
> Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 6) to use the latest version of Django for an 
> additional eight months. If you don't intend to upgrade to a system with 
> Python 3.5 or later by the end of security updates for Django 2.0 in April 
> 2019, stick with Django 1.11 LTS which is supported until April 2020."
>
>
> As to Python 3.4 support, Django 1.11 will be LTS and most projects 
> written with Django <=1.10 will probably stay on LTS version. Using Django 
> 2.0 in existing project would require rewriting some bits anyway (correct 
> me if I'm wrong), so there's really not much point in sticking to Python 
> 3.4/3.5 in my opinion. If you're rewriting your code to use new version of 
> Django, you could as well use new version of Python. Isn't it the whole 
> point of major release?
>
> Sticking to 3.6 would allow using format strings, and that would greatly 
> increase readability (looking at %-strings here). To be honest, using 
> str.format on string with many variables can hurt readability almost as 
> much as % does. Also, variable annotation only appeared in 3.6, so 
> supporting Python 3.5 an older would mean that variable annotation is only 
> possible using comments (which is not necessarily a bad thing, tough it has 
> some downsides as pointed out in PEP-526).
>
> I have to add, that nowadays deploying python applications with desired 
> version of Python is fairly easy. One could use relocatable virtualenvs, 
> Docker containers and so on. So even if you're on an outdated distro (or 
> something like RHEL, that wouldn't get new python version in ages, 
> probably) and your OS is stuck with older version of Python, your 
> application doesn't have to be.
>
> Since there're a lot of Django users out there who aren't subscribed to 
> this mailing list, I suggest to sum up this discussion in a blog post and 
> let users vote. I believe a big "Help decide Django 2.0 fate" button on 
> djangoproject.com would attract much more attention to the issue. Maybe 
> most of Django users are ready to migrate to Python 3.6 when they switch to 
> Django 2.0 (probably not, but who knows) and developers could start 
> enjoying new Python features a year or two earlier.
>
> P.S. Please treat everything above as a personal opinion, I'm probably 
> wrong about some things. And sorry for a bad English, it's not my native 
> language.
>
> On 7 Jan 2017, at 19:48, Tim Graham  
> wrote:
>
> Daniele, here's my try at being more concrete than "It seems reasonable" 
> and "decent ledge of overlap". Let me know if you meant something different!
>
> "Django 2.0 will be the last version of Django to support Python 3.4. This 
> allows those running older operating systems with Python 3.4 (such as 
> Ubuntu 14.04 and CentOS 6) to use the latest version of Django for an 
> additional eight months. If you don't intend to upgrade to a system with 
> Python 3.5 or later by the end of security updates for Django 2.0 in April 
> 2019, stick with Django 1.11 LTS which is supported until April 2020."
>
> I'd rather not allow Python 3.4 users to strand themselves on Django 2.0 
> when sticking with 1.11 would provide longer security support (lesson 
> learned from Python 2.6 users stranded on Django 1.6), but hopefully 
> documenting this danger 

Re: Use of HTML autofocus attribute in admin (#27692)

[Ciske Boekelo]

I just found out that's it not new behavior in Django 1.9. The javascript 
autofocus that existed previously has the same effect. This doesn't change 
my request though, I'd still like the autofocus to be either removed or 
optional.

Op vrijdag 6 januari 2017 18:54:54 UTC+1 schreef Adam Johnson:
>
> I think we should remove it and maybe add the Javascript back, this is 
> going to affect many peoples' workflows, some of whom are in my 
> organization.
>
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 5:48:12 PM UTC, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> As part of removing inline JavaScript in the admin [0], snippets such as 
>> document.getElementById("id_old_password").focus() were replaced with 
>> the HTML5 autofocus attribute.
>>
>> This attribute has a possibly undesired behavior [1]: "*Warning*: this 
>> attribute will force a page scroll to the field with the autofocus attribute 
>> set, even within an iframe. So: know your audience, know the position of 
>> the form."
>>
>> This attribute could be problematic on the change list's admin's search 
>> box: "When coming back to the list screen from the edit screen, the 
>> browser normally remembers your scroll position and restores it. This is 
>> desirable behavior if you want to work through a long lists of objects. 
>> However, when you include a search field in the list screen, it has 
>> autofocus enabled, which prevents the scroll position from being restored. 
>> This is annoying and unhelpful." [2]
>>
>> Do you think we should remove autofocus from the search box to remedy 
>> this complaint (and possibly go back to using JavaScript for that) or are 
>> there any better solutions here?
>>
>> [0] 
>> https://github.com/django/django/commit/d638cdc42acec608c1967f44af6be32a477c239f
>> [1] http://www.wufoo.com/html5/attributes/02-autofocus.html
>> [2] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27692
>>
>

-- 
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/d02bfbaa-be99-46da-9a11-a8fad7fac7cc%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Florian Apolloner]

Hi Josh,

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:38:52 AM UTC+1, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way 
> by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change is 
> dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.
>

Django evolves, there are new things in every release and if possible I'd 
rather have more people testing new short-term-support releases.

 

> If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, 
> then they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0.
>

Maybe, maybe not, I just don't want to have the one release that drops 
Python 2.0 also be the one release that moves the Python version support to 
an "island"-solution which just supports py3.6 (or maybe 3.7 by that time). 
Even if we leave RHEL out of it, I'd very much like people on their dev 
machines with a still supported ubuntu LTS (ie 16.04) to be able to try 
Django 2.0, which is certainly an argument against dropping 3.5 at least. 
You are right that 3.4 might be far stretching, but again, if it doesn't 
cost us much, but gives us a wide range of supported systems, why not? 
Given that 1.11 supports 3.4 anyways, there is also no extra burden on the 
CI machines (maintenance wise) aside from a bigger build matrix.

I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python on 
> Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
> installing newer Python versions.
>

Yes ius/scl are relatively great, but the miss glue code -- ie you get a 
new Python, but you still need to recompile mod_wsgi for instance… That 
said, with the deadsnakes repo dead, I think new CI server for django would 
probably be using CentOS since that is an easy way to get access to py 2.7 
& 3.4-3.6.

Cheers,
Florian

-- 
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/bed85695-2985-4b7b-9799-852aeacb29af%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Florian Apolloner]

Hi,

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:43:46 AM UTC+1, roboslone wrote:
>
> As Django user, I have to say type hinting would help a lot to understand 
> how things work in Django without looking at docs. It could save a lot of 
> time for beginners, too. 
>

I've been working with "type hinting" in CPP and Java IDEs for years and 
can't say that they saved me from looking at the Docs. Quite often they 
actually made me write worse code since I was missing tips from the 
documentation. I nowadays quite often just work with in-file completion, 
nothing fancy.

Also I have to mention, that PyCharm (which is the most popular IDE for 
> Python, I believe) has support for type hinting and could help you avoid 
> many problems before even firing up a server.
>

Cannot speak for PyCharm, I try it once a year or so and am so annoyed by 
it that I drop it before the end of the day usually.
 

> In my opinion not adding type hints in Django 2.0 would be a mistake.
>

Maybe, but that will require someone convinced to step up. All I hear so 
far is that type hinting would be nice to have, but I do not see any 
concrete proposals anywhere. And even if we allow python 3.4, we can 
support type hinting via stub files.
 

> Using Django 2.0 in existing project would require rewriting some bits 
> anyway (correct me if I'm wrong)
>

Not more rewriting than lets say 1.10 -> 1.11, the increase in the version 
number is because we are dropping python 2, not because we are going to 
break backwards compat like rails 3 -> 4 (excuse me if I got the version 
numbers wrong)
 

> If you're rewriting your code to use new version of Django, you could as 
> well use new version of Python.
>

I'd be honestly surprised by that, updating Django is way easier than 
installing a new Python version.
 

> Sticking to 3.6 would allow using format strings, and that would greatly 
> increase readability (looking at %-strings here).
>

Knowing what certain members of the core team think about those f-strings, 
I think there will be first a big discussion if we will allow them at all 
in Django's codebase. Then there are further things to consider like 
gettext support etc…
 

> I have to add, that nowadays deploying python applications with desired 
> version of Python is fairly easy. One could use relocatable virtualenvs, 
> Docker containers and so on.
>

No it is not that easy, even if you make a venv relocatable it is not ment 
to be copied to a system not supporting that python version. And sadly 
containers are not always an option.
 

> So even if you're on an outdated distro (or something like RHEL, that 
> wouldn't get new python version in ages, probably) and your OS is stuck 
> with older version of Python, your application doesn't have to be.
>

I guess that is where we have to disagree. 

and developers could start enjoying new Python features a year or two 
> earlier.
>

Noone is stopping you to use new Python features in your own code, but 
there is currently no convincing reason to force Django onto a new Python 
version imo. 

Cheers,
Florian

-- 
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/752d1db0-ca10-4a3c-822a-d623cda98652%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Asif Saifuddin]

Hi Josh,

How about keeping 3.5 support in 2.0.0? say the users of ubuntu 16.04 using 
systems python3.5 and update to 2.0 or started a new project with dj2.0.0 
in ubuntu 16.04.

About pyenv, it take care of installing and using different versions of 
python in a system without hampering the system python. There could be some 
pointer about possible alternatives IMHO.

I use pyenv regularly and it makes like of a python developer really great.

Thanks

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 6:00:08 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> Apparently I'm dumb and didn't read enough. pyenv *does* take care of 
> installation too. I'm not familiar enough with it (obviously..) to know 
> whether or not we should be encouraging its use.
>
> On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:33:44 UTC+11, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>>
>> I don't think pyenv is really relevant to this discussion and not 
>> something we really need to promote. pyenv deals with making a particular 
>> installed python *available*, it doesn't handle the installation of that 
>> python.
>>
>> On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:30:44 UTC+11, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Josh,
>>>
>>> I do agree and support your idea's. How about pointing/recommend pyenv 
>>> for deployment in the doc?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Asif
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:38:52 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:

 I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful 
 way by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change 
 is dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.

 If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:

 - 1.11 will be LTS and will be supported for **longer** than Django 2.0 
 will be.
 - 1.11 supports 2.7 through to 3.6.
 - The next LTS, which is likely the next version of Django for these 
 Users, will support 3.6+

 If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, 
 then they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0. If they plan to move 
 to Python 3 at all, it'll be on 1.11 or 2.2.
 And if they want to be running on the latest and greatest Django, then 
 why shouldn't that extend to adding an RPM repo or RedHat-SCL and 
 installing the latest Python?

 I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python 
 on Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
 installing newer Python versions.





-- 
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/4b54d28a-a4f2-469d-b096-dbbf7b362e9d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Josh Smeaton]

Apparently I'm dumb and didn't read enough. pyenv *does* take care of 
installation too. I'm not familiar enough with it (obviously..) to know 
whether or not we should be encouraging its use.

On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:33:44 UTC+11, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I don't think pyenv is really relevant to this discussion and not 
> something we really need to promote. pyenv deals with making a particular 
> installed python *available*, it doesn't handle the installation of that 
> python.
>
> On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:30:44 UTC+11, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> I do agree and support your idea's. How about pointing/recommend pyenv 
>> for deployment in the doc?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Asif
>>
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:38:52 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful 
>>> way by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change 
>>> is dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.
>>>
>>> If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:
>>>
>>> - 1.11 will be LTS and will be supported for **longer** than Django 2.0 
>>> will be.
>>> - 1.11 supports 2.7 through to 3.6.
>>> - The next LTS, which is likely the next version of Django for these 
>>> Users, will support 3.6+
>>>
>>> If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, 
>>> then they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0. If they plan to move 
>>> to Python 3 at all, it'll be on 1.11 or 2.2.
>>> And if they want to be running on the latest and greatest Django, then 
>>> why shouldn't that extend to adding an RPM repo or RedHat-SCL and 
>>> installing the latest Python?
>>>
>>> I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python 
>>> on Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
>>> installing newer Python versions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
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/8591dcc5-ef09-414c-be25-fd8be41dd503%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Josh Smeaton]

I don't think pyenv is really relevant to this discussion and not something 
we really need to promote. pyenv deals with making a particular installed 
python *available*, it doesn't handle the installation of that python.

On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:30:44 UTC+11, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>
> Hi Josh,
>
> I do agree and support your idea's. How about pointing/recommend pyenv for 
> deployment in the doc?
>
> Thanks,
> Asif
>
> On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:38:52 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>>
>> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful 
>> way by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change 
>> is dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.
>>
>> If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:
>>
>> - 1.11 will be LTS and will be supported for **longer** than Django 2.0 
>> will be.
>> - 1.11 supports 2.7 through to 3.6.
>> - The next LTS, which is likely the next version of Django for these 
>> Users, will support 3.6+
>>
>> If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, 
>> then they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0. If they plan to move 
>> to Python 3 at all, it'll be on 1.11 or 2.2.
>> And if they want to be running on the latest and greatest Django, then 
>> why shouldn't that extend to adding an RPM repo or RedHat-SCL and 
>> installing the latest Python?
>>
>> I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python 
>> on Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
>> installing newer Python versions.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
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/f97a46b2-3288-454a-8a0a-9c1106f5c81c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Asif Saifuddin]

Hi Josh,

I do agree and support your idea's. How about pointing/recommend pyenv for 
deployment in the doc?

Thanks,
Asif

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:38:52 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way 
> by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change is 
> dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.
>
> If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:
>
> - 1.11 will be LTS and will be supported for **longer** than Django 2.0 
> will be.
> - 1.11 supports 2.7 through to 3.6.
> - The next LTS, which is likely the next version of Django for these 
> Users, will support 3.6+
>
> If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, 
> then they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0. If they plan to move 
> to Python 3 at all, it'll be on 1.11 or 2.2.
> And if they want to be running on the latest and greatest Django, then why 
> shouldn't that extend to adding an RPM repo or RedHat-SCL and installing 
> the latest Python?
>
> I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python on 
> Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
> installing newer Python versions.
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/f74d4ef9-07b9-4bae-b8a7-4fefbc6cb0cc%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Django 2.0 Python version support (Python 3.6+ only?)

[Josh Smeaton]

I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way 
by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change is 
dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.

If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:

- 1.11 will be LTS and will be supported for **longer** than Django 2.0 
will be.
- 1.11 supports 2.7 through to 3.6.
- The next LTS, which is likely the next version of Django for these Users, 
will support 3.6+

If we're wanting users to upgrade their code bases to run on Python 3, then 
they certainly won't be doing it on Django 2.0. If they plan to move to 
Python 3 at all, it'll be on 1.11 or 2.2.
And if they want to be running on the latest and greatest Django, then why 
shouldn't that extend to adding an RPM repo or RedHat-SCL and installing 
the latest Python?

I admit to a lack of knowledge on how to install new versions of Python on 
Ubuntu-likes. But https://ius.io/ is a great Redhat/Centos repo for 
installing newer Python versions.



-- 
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/a42c0ae6-7291-4643-b558-1b29bcb65081%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.