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

[Tim Graham]

Here's a PR to document Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0: 
https://github.com/django/django/pull/8884

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-4, Rotund wrote:
>
> Looking at the list, I think the only gain that required 3.5+ was typing. 
> The performance was due to which version was installed and not a real 
> feature. That stated, should the installer add typing from pypi as a 
> requirement (assuming someone adds typing info). 
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 3:01 AM Aymeric Augustin <
> aymeric@polytechnique.org > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I took a look at this thread again and I still reach the same conclusion 
>> as Claude.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -- 
>> Aymeric.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 09:02, Claude Paroz  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :
>>
>>> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I 
>>> guess we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>>>
>>
>> I am not strongly opposed to dropping 3.4 support, but I still think we 
>> should keep it for Django 2.0.
>> The speed improvements in 3.5/3.6 are still available if you run more 
>> recent versions in your own projects.
>> I have not yet read any compelling reason to drop Python 3.4 support now.
>>
>> Claude
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/7d30960d-41d8-4864-b749-dfa62810ed39%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/16F0CFA9-6AE8-457D-A07D-50630DE36BD5%40polytechnique.org
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> 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/c7af0a68-e130-4368-8592-650fdf24f8ed%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Joe Tennies]

Looking at the list, I think the only gain that required 3.5+ was typing.
The performance was due to which version was installed and not a real
feature. That stated, should the installer add typing from pypi as a
requirement (assuming someone adds typing info).

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 3:01 AM Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I took a look at this thread again and I still reach the same conclusion
> as Claude.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Aymeric.
>
>
>
> On 9 Aug 2017, at 09:02, Claude Paroz  wrote:
>
> Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :
>
>> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess
>> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>>
>
> I am not strongly opposed to dropping 3.4 support, but I still think we
> should keep it for Django 2.0.
> The speed improvements in 3.5/3.6 are still available if you run more
> recent versions in your own projects.
> I have not yet read any compelling reason to drop Python 3.4 support now.
>
> Claude
>
> --
> 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/7d30960d-41d8-4864-b749-dfa62810ed39%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> 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/16F0CFA9-6AE8-457D-A07D-50630DE36BD5%40polytechnique.org
> 
> .
> 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/CACiOJ6uPOL-XZ00ePq1ERs8C49BLmm-rMyskdAFjKLtMkCST0g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Aymeric Augustin]

Hello,

I took a look at this thread again and I still reach the same conclusion as 
Claude.

Best regards,

-- 
Aymeric.



> On 9 Aug 2017, at 09:02, Claude Paroz  wrote:
> 
> Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :
> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess 
> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
> 
> I am not strongly opposed to dropping 3.4 support, but I still think we 
> should keep it for Django 2.0.
> The speed improvements in 3.5/3.6 are still available if you run more recent 
> versions in your own projects.
> I have not yet read any compelling reason to drop Python 3.4 support now.
> 
> Claude
> 
> -- 
> 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/7d30960d-41d8-4864-b749-dfa62810ed39%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .
> 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/16F0CFA9-6AE8-457D-A07D-50630DE36BD5%40polytechnique.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Claude Paroz]

Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :

> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess 
> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>

I am not strongly opposed to dropping 3.4 support, but I still think we 
should keep it for Django 2.0.
The speed improvements in 3.5/3.6 are still available if you run more 
recent versions in your own projects.
I have not yet read any compelling reason to drop Python 3.4 support now.

Claude

-- 
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/7d30960d-41d8-4864-b749-dfa62810ed39%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Alex Krupp]

One platform that only supports up to Python 3.4 ElasticBeanstalk with 
Amazon Linux. A few months ago they said they were going to release a new 
AMI, but that hasn't happened yet.

I'm personally happy seeing support for 3.4 dropped and possibly just 
waiting a few months to upgrade to Django 2.0. But the staff at the AWS 
popup lofts have been saying that they look at the number of support 
tickets in deciding when to cut new AMI releases, so if other people care 
about this then maybe it would be a good time to start filing tickets.


On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 10:12:57 AM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>
> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python 
> version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security 
> support ends after security support for that version of Python ends."
>
> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close to 
> Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
> that. Any objections?
>
> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
> 3.6 feature:
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>

-- 
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/a0e9916b-858b-471c-a7f5-075ba74d8604%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tom Forbes]

One of the biggest gains would be allowing third party packages to begin to
add type hints, if we support 3.4 this won't happen for a while at least.

Other gains, for Django and third party  packages include:
- code improvements using unpacking generalizations
- speed improvements with OrderedDict and lru_cache
- support for the Http status enumeration in stdlib
- much faster directory iteration function with scandir
- other general speed improvements (
https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.5.html#optimizations)

Apart from type hinting (which is a contentious issue) there are not any
big gains we get from 3.5 over 3.4. lots of small ones though.

On 8 Aug 2017 09:16, "Curtis Maloney"  wrote:

Is there any list of things we gain from dropping / adding any particular
version?

The older discussion mentions a tracking ticket, but it is empty.

--
C


On 8 August 2017 9:45:54 AM AEST, Tim Graham  wrote:
>
> With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha (targeted
> for September 18), I'd like to make a final decision about whether or not
> to keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0. Jenkins is currently running the
> tests on pull requests with Python 3.4 and 3.6. I've seen a few times where
> contributors first used Python 3.5+ syntax and then had to make adjustments
> for 3.4 compatibility so while it's not a large burden, it's not a
> non-trivial one.
>
> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess
> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:32:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we can
>> use when Python 3.4 support is removed: https://code.djangoproject.com
>> /ticket/27857
>>
>> We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and
>> decide whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-5, Rotund wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development against
>>> Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the
>>> release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are
>>> expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released, so
>>> please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal, but I
>>> think the idea is correct.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>
> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to
> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before
> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work
> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a
> decision then.
>

 I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would
 have difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
 My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if
 I could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very much
 like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!

 Claude

 --
 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/ms
 gid/django-developers/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%
 40googlegroups.com
 
 .

 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Joe Tennies
>>> ten...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
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/6160B82D-223A-401F-BB3C-B87965C83823%40tinbrain.net

.

For 

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

[Curtis Maloney]

Is there any list of things we gain from dropping / adding any particular 
version?

The older discussion mentions a tracking ticket, but it is empty.

--
C

On 8 August 2017 9:45:54 AM AEST, Tim Graham  wrote:
>With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha
>(targeted 
>for September 18), I'd like to make a final decision about whether or
>not 
>to keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0. Jenkins is currently running
>the 
>tests on pull requests with Python 3.4 and 3.6. I've seen a few times
>where 
>contributors first used Python 3.5+ syntax and then had to make
>adjustments 
>for 3.4 compatibility so while it's not a large burden, it's not a 
>non-trivial one.
>
>Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I
>guess 
>we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>
>On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:32:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we
>can 
>> use when Python 3.4 support is removed: 
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27857
>>
>> We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and 
>> decide whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-5, Rotund wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development
>against 
>>> Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the
>
>>> release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are 
>>> expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released,
>so 
>>> please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal,
>but I 
>>> think the idea is correct.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz 
>wrote:
>>>
 Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>
> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not
>to 
> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time.
>Shortly before 
> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how
>much work 
> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make
>a 
> decision then.
>

 I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would
>have 
 difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
 My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even
>if I 
 could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I
>very much 
 like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!

 Claude

 -- 
 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com
>

>
 .

 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Joe Tennies
>>> ten...@gmail.com
>>>
>>
>
>-- 
>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/356d7e07-0be0-4200-a5da-0d092dd2e761%40googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
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/6160B82D-223A-401F-BB3C-B87965C83823%40tinbrain.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Florian Apolloner]

Hi Tim,

I've just looked through the list of systems in use here:

 * Debian stable: Python 3.5.3
 * Ubuntu 16.04 (yes, LTS): 3.5.2
 * CentOS 6/7 (and therefore also RHEL): 3.3-3.5 via SCL, 3.3-3.6 via IUS

So all in all dropping 3.4 would be doable. I'd still strongly object to 
dropping 3.5.

Cheers,
Florian

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 1:45:55 AM UTC+2, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha (targeted 
> for September 18), I'd like to make a final decision about whether or not 
> to keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0. Jenkins is currently running the 
> tests on pull requests with Python 3.4 and 3.6. I've seen a few times where 
> contributors first used Python 3.5+ syntax and then had to make adjustments 
> for 3.4 compatibility so while it's not a large burden, it's not a 
> non-trivial one.
>
> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess 
> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:32:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we can 
>> use when Python 3.4 support is removed: 
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27857
>>
>> We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and 
>> decide whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-5, Rotund wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development against 
>>> Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the 
>>> release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are 
>>> expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released, so 
>>> please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal, but I 
>>> think the idea is correct.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>
> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to 
> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly 
> before 
> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much 
> work 
> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a 
> decision then.
>

 I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would 
 have difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
 My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if 
 I could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very 
 much 
 like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!

 Claude

 -- 
 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com
  
 
 .

 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Joe Tennies
>>> ten...@gmail.com
>>>
>>

-- 
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/c809cc50-ada8-4275-a476-da8ebbb1e78d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha (targeted 
for September 18), I'd like to make a final decision about whether or not 
to keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0. Jenkins is currently running the 
tests on pull requests with Python 3.4 and 3.6. I've seen a few times where 
contributors first used Python 3.5+ syntax and then had to make adjustments 
for 3.4 compatibility so while it's not a large burden, it's not a 
non-trivial one.

Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess 
we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:32:20 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we can 
> use when Python 3.4 support is removed: 
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27857
>
> We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and 
> decide whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.
>
> On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-5, Rotund wrote:
>>
>> I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development against 
>> Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the 
>> release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are 
>> expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released, so 
>> please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal, but I 
>> think the idea is correct.)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz  wrote:
>>
>>> Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :

 I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to 
 remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before 
 the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work 
 is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a 
 decision then.

>>>
>>> I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would have 
>>> difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
>>> My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if I 
>>> could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very much 
>>> like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!
>>>
>>> Claude
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Joe Tennies
>> ten...@gmail.com
>>
>

-- 
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/356d7e07-0be0-4200-a5da-0d092dd2e761%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we can use 
when Python 3.4 support is removed: 
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27857

We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and decide 
whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 12:20:13 PM UTC-5, Rotund wrote:
>
> I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development against 
> Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the 
> release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are 
> expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released, so 
> please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal, but I 
> think the idea is correct.)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz  > wrote:
>
>> Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>>>
>>> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to 
>>> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before 
>>> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work 
>>> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a 
>>> decision then.
>>>
>>
>> I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would have 
>> difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
>> My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if I 
>> could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very much 
>> like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!
>>
>> Claude
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe Tennies
> ten...@gmail.com 
>

-- 
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/fb3704d2-c069-41d2-beb0-445524c6f0aa%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Joe Tennies]

I agree that allowing more people to be able to do development against
Django 2.0 is important. That stated, please be very explicit in the
release notes and documentation that "Versions below Python 3.6 are
expected to be dropped before the next Django LTS will be released, so
please keep that in your project planning." (Language too informal, but I
think the idea is correct.)



On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Claude Paroz  wrote:

> Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>>
>> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to
>> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before
>> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work
>> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a
>> decision then.
>>
>
> I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would have
> difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
> My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if I
> could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very much
> like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!
>
> Claude
>
> --
> 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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-
> 93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Joe Tennies
tenn...@gmail.com

-- 
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/CACiOJ6tnEqkJdkaWv%2B6%2BP3eFUGz4uwY_0tHu8qfg6m0o%3D-T6zw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Claude Paroz]

Le mardi 17 janvier 2017 15:48:46 UTC+1, Tim Graham a écrit :
>
> I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to 
> remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before 
> the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work 
> is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a 
> decision then.
>

I'm strongly advocating for keeping 3.4 support for now, as I would have 
difficulty to continue contributing to Django.
My main system is still using 3.4 and will be for some months. Even if I 
could rather easily installing manually a more recent Python, I very much 
like relying on my stable distro packages. Sorry for my dumbness!

Claude

-- 
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/09570028-4eea-41ac-b364-93ae2c946b21%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

I propose to tentatively target Python 3.5+ for Django 2.0 but not to 
remove the current workarounds for Python 3.4 at this time. Shortly before 
the alpha for Django 2.0, an interested person can look into how much work 
is required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a 
decision then.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:52:13 PM UTC-5, Cheng Chi wrote:
>
> +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 

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: 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.

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

[roboslone]

> 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 will help prevent that this time around.
> 
> On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 6:30:23 AM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017, Florian Apolloner  
> wrote: 
> 
> >Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of 
> >"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do 
> >understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what 
> >we want, how long we want" :D 
> 
> For the purposes of being reassuring, it needs to be concrete, otherwise 
> we're just moving people's doubt and uncertainty around! 
> 
> 
> It seems reasonable that Django 2.0 should continue to support Python 3.4, 
> and that Django 2.1 should not. That provides 

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

[Tim Graham]

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 will help prevent that this time around.

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 6:30:23 AM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017, Florian Apolloner  
> wrote: 
>
> >Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of 
> >"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do 
> >understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what 
> >we want, how long we want" :D 
>
> For the purposes of being reassuring, it needs to be concrete, otherwise 
> we're just moving people's doubt and uncertainty around! 
>
>
> It seems reasonable that Django 2.0 should continue to support Python 3.4, 
> and that Django 2.1 should not. That provides a decent ledge of overlap for 
> those climbing up these tricky upgrade paths to rest on and catch their 
> breath. 
>
> Daniele 
>
>

-- 
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/68cfdafc-730c-42bb-a772-4f17193645f5%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]

On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 4:03:43 AM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support 
> Python 3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new 
> in 3.5?
>

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.

-- 
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/040670a9-d2ad-4f97-9498-b28000b60396%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Daniele Procida]

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017, Florian Apolloner  wrote:

>Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of 
>"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do 
>understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what 
>we want, how long we want" :D

For the purposes of being reassuring, it needs to be concrete, otherwise we're 
just moving people's doubt and uncertainty around!


It seems reasonable that Django 2.0 should continue to support Python 3.4, and 
that Django 2.1 should not. That provides a decent ledge of overlap for those 
climbing up these tricky upgrade paths to rest on and catch their breath.

Daniele

-- 
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/20170107113010.1464403373%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Florian Apolloner]

Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of 
"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do 
understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what 
we want, how long we want" :D

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 2:33:24 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> So you all want to do a one time exception to our guidance of of 
> "Typically we will support a Python version up to and including the first 
> Django LTS release whose security support ends after security support for 
> that version of Python ends." and support Python 3.4 for how long? Or 
> revise the guidance?
>
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:02 AM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, Florian Apolloner  wrote: 
>>
>> >In the end (in my experience), people are using Django everywhere and 
>> part 
>> >of the usage also comes from the fact that it's not that hard to deploy 
>> for 
>> >sysadmins since python is available anywhere; compiling a new Python + 
>> >infrastructure around it is something else again and requires a lot of 
>> >change requests in some companies. 
>>
>> In practical terms it makes a big difference. Remember <
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/qCjfOu-FPxQ/discussion>,
>>  
>> that prompted a change of LTS policy? 
>>
>> *Anything* that makes the transition easier is to be welcomed, and that 
>> doesn't just mean technically easier, it also means easier to think about 
>> and to talk about to project managers and clients and web project owners. 
>>
>> Reassurance in time of change counts for a great deal. When someone gets 
>> to spend a day or two basking in the glory of a top item on Hacker News 
>> because he wrote a "Don't go to Python 3" article, there is clearly some 
>> reassuring to be done. 
>>
>> If the technical cost of supporting 3.4 in Django 2.0 is not too high, I 
>> feel it would be valuable to have it. 
>>
>> The actual technical justification for keeping it may be weak, but 
>> barriers to adoption are not always technical ones anyway, and my 
>> preference would be to keep them as low as possible. 
>>
>> Daniele 
>>
>>

-- 
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/616e0309-0119-4269-85b0-a48e421a563a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Daniel Moisset]

Type hinting can be done in python 3.x by depending on the typing module
(or inlining it). Type hinting for instance/class attributes will have a
much nicer syntax in python 3.6 only (PEP 526)

Best,
   D.

On 7 January 2017 at 03:03, Tim Graham  wrote:

> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support
> Python 3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new
> in 3.5?
>
>
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> Tom, I'm not following how Python 3.4 support in Django 2.0 will benefit
>> you if you want to stick to LTS versions of Django? I think either you or I
>> have a misunderstanding somewhere. I'll try to recap:
>>
>> Django 1.11 is the next LTS. It's supported until April 2020 and supports
>> Python 3.4. The next LTS, Django 2.2 is due in April 2019, after the Python
>> 3.4 end of life in March 2019 -- so I don't think we can justify supporting
>> Python 3.4 in that LTS unless we decide to base our supported Python policy
>> on CentOS rather than Python's own support lifecycle. Florian and Daniele
>> are proposing supporting Python 3.4 for Django 2.0 and/or 2.1. Those
>> versions have security support ending in April 2019 and December 2019,
>> respectively. If you want to use Python 3.4 and maximize the time you can
>> receive Django security updates, stick with 1.11 LTS (April 2020).
>>
>> Look at these tables if you're in doubt:
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions
>> https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches
>>
>> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:22:17 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Asif Saifuddin 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be
>>> > released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this
>>> > should also be taken as consideration while deciding.
>>>
>>> I know supporting endless versions of python is not desirable, but
>>> please bear in mind that some of us are in situations where what the
>>> latest release of Ubunutu is not really relevant.
>>>
>>> Our organisation uses CentOS 6, which is not EOL until the end of
>>> 2020. In CentOS 6, the stock version of python is python 2.6; we go
>>> through special measures (EPEL) to get that up to python 2.7. If we
>>> wanted to make the move to Python 3, we'd be talking about Python 3.4,
>>> again through EPEL.
>>>
>>> We have an infrastructure team responsible for provisioning servers,
>>> and it is on their schedule that OS upgrades occur - it is not easy
>>> for us as developers to argue that this team should spend significant
>>> resource to upgrade to a later OS version or to roll custom python
>>> RPMs.
>>>
>>> Updating all of our codebase to Python 3 is going to be a pain for us,
>>> it is hard to argue a business need with "Everything stays exactly the
>>> same but is slightly more secure and easier to maintain".
>>> Realistically, when we move to Python 3, it will be because the
>>> supported Django LTS requires it. If we also have to jump through lots
>>> of hoops to get the very latest Python 3 release, it won't make it
>>> easier to argue, it will mean we are more likely to postpone it and
>>> keep using old django versions, particularly on internal intranet
>>> sites.
>>>
>>> If there is a way that Python 3.4 support can be maintained without
>>> significant detriment or penalty, this would be greatly appreciated by
>>> those of us running more conservative enterprise distributions.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>> --
> 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/680d3d55-a9d4-46d9-a587-
> c49649f24cbf%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Daniel F. Moisset - UK Country Manager
www.machinalis.com
Skype: @dmoisset

-- 
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 

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

[James Bennett]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:03 PM Tim Graham  wrote:

> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support
> Python 3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new
>
> The typing module also exists standalone on PyPI and thus is pip
> installable for Python 3 < 3.5.
>

-- 
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/CAL13Cg_5F5MY54Dcc_58w0DcaX5k%2BJwZ_NtfeWJicqi1fc1Z0w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support Python 
3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new in 3.5?

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Tom, I'm not following how Python 3.4 support in Django 2.0 will benefit 
> you if you want to stick to LTS versions of Django? I think either you or I 
> have a misunderstanding somewhere. I'll try to recap:
>
> Django 1.11 is the next LTS. It's supported until April 2020 and supports 
> Python 3.4. The next LTS, Django 2.2 is due in April 2019, after the Python 
> 3.4 end of life in March 2019 -- so I don't think we can justify supporting 
> Python 3.4 in that LTS unless we decide to base our supported Python policy 
> on CentOS rather than Python's own support lifecycle. Florian and Daniele 
> are proposing supporting Python 3.4 for Django 2.0 and/or 2.1. Those 
> versions have security support ending in April 2019 and December 2019, 
> respectively. If you want to use Python 3.4 and maximize the time you can 
> receive Django security updates, stick with 1.11 LTS (April 2020).
>
> Look at these tables if you're in doubt:
> https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions
> https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches
>
> On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:22:17 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Asif Saifuddin  wrote: 
>> > Hi, 
>> > 
>> > django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be 
>> > released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this 
>> > should also be taken as consideration while deciding. 
>>
>> I know supporting endless versions of python is not desirable, but 
>> please bear in mind that some of us are in situations where what the 
>> latest release of Ubunutu is not really relevant. 
>>
>> Our organisation uses CentOS 6, which is not EOL until the end of 
>> 2020. In CentOS 6, the stock version of python is python 2.6; we go 
>> through special measures (EPEL) to get that up to python 2.7. If we 
>> wanted to make the move to Python 3, we'd be talking about Python 3.4, 
>> again through EPEL. 
>>
>> We have an infrastructure team responsible for provisioning servers, 
>> and it is on their schedule that OS upgrades occur - it is not easy 
>> for us as developers to argue that this team should spend significant 
>> resource to upgrade to a later OS version or to roll custom python 
>> RPMs. 
>>
>> Updating all of our codebase to Python 3 is going to be a pain for us, 
>> it is hard to argue a business need with "Everything stays exactly the 
>> same but is slightly more secure and easier to maintain". 
>> Realistically, when we move to Python 3, it will be because the 
>> supported Django LTS requires it. If we also have to jump through lots 
>> of hoops to get the very latest Python 3 release, it won't make it 
>> easier to argue, it will mean we are more likely to postpone it and 
>> keep using old django versions, particularly on internal intranet 
>> sites. 
>>
>> If there is a way that Python 3.4 support can be maintained without 
>> significant detriment or penalty, this would be greatly appreciated by 
>> those of us running more conservative enterprise distributions. 
>>
>> Cheers 
>>
>> Tom 
>>
>

-- 
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/680d3d55-a9d4-46d9-a587-c49649f24cbf%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

Tom, I'm not following how Python 3.4 support in Django 2.0 will benefit 
you if you want to stick to LTS versions of Django? I think either you or I 
have a misunderstanding somewhere. I'll try to recap:

Django 1.11 is the next LTS. It's supported until April 2020 and supports 
Python 3.4. The next LTS, Django 2.2 is due in April 2019, after the Python 
3.4 end of life in March 2019 -- so I don't think we can justify supporting 
Python 3.4 in that LTS unless we decide to base our supported Python policy 
on CentOS rather than Python's own support lifecycle. Florian and Daniele 
are proposing supporting Python 3.4 for Django 2.0 and/or 2.1. Those 
versions have security support ending in April 2019 and December 2019, 
respectively. If you want to use Python 3.4 and maximize the time you can 
receive Django security updates, stick with 1.11 LTS (April 2020).

Look at these tables if you're in doubt:
https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions
https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 11:22:17 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Asif Saifuddin  > wrote: 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be 
> > released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this 
> > should also be taken as consideration while deciding. 
>
> I know supporting endless versions of python is not desirable, but 
> please bear in mind that some of us are in situations where what the 
> latest release of Ubunutu is not really relevant. 
>
> Our organisation uses CentOS 6, which is not EOL until the end of 
> 2020. In CentOS 6, the stock version of python is python 2.6; we go 
> through special measures (EPEL) to get that up to python 2.7. If we 
> wanted to make the move to Python 3, we'd be talking about Python 3.4, 
> again through EPEL. 
>
> We have an infrastructure team responsible for provisioning servers, 
> and it is on their schedule that OS upgrades occur - it is not easy 
> for us as developers to argue that this team should spend significant 
> resource to upgrade to a later OS version or to roll custom python 
> RPMs. 
>
> Updating all of our codebase to Python 3 is going to be a pain for us, 
> it is hard to argue a business need with "Everything stays exactly the 
> same but is slightly more secure and easier to maintain". 
> Realistically, when we move to Python 3, it will be because the 
> supported Django LTS requires it. If we also have to jump through lots 
> of hoops to get the very latest Python 3 release, it won't make it 
> easier to argue, it will mean we are more likely to postpone it and 
> keep using old django versions, particularly on internal intranet 
> sites. 
>
> If there is a way that Python 3.4 support can be maintained without 
> significant detriment or penalty, this would be greatly appreciated by 
> those of us running more conservative enterprise distributions. 
>
> Cheers 
>
> Tom 
>

-- 
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/e28e848c-4739-4d1d-aea7-82646bd68433%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

['Tom Evans' via Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Asif Saifuddin  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be
> released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this
> should also be taken as consideration while deciding.

I know supporting endless versions of python is not desirable, but
please bear in mind that some of us are in situations where what the
latest release of Ubunutu is not really relevant.

Our organisation uses CentOS 6, which is not EOL until the end of
2020. In CentOS 6, the stock version of python is python 2.6; we go
through special measures (EPEL) to get that up to python 2.7. If we
wanted to make the move to Python 3, we'd be talking about Python 3.4,
again through EPEL.

We have an infrastructure team responsible for provisioning servers,
and it is on their schedule that OS upgrades occur - it is not easy
for us as developers to argue that this team should spend significant
resource to upgrade to a later OS version or to roll custom python
RPMs.

Updating all of our codebase to Python 3 is going to be a pain for us,
it is hard to argue a business need with "Everything stays exactly the
same but is slightly more secure and easier to maintain".
Realistically, when we move to Python 3, it will be because the
supported Django LTS requires it. If we also have to jump through lots
of hoops to get the very latest Python 3 release, it won't make it
easier to argue, it will mean we are more likely to postpone it and
keep using old django versions, particularly on internal intranet
sites.

If there is a way that Python 3.4 support can be maintained without
significant detriment or penalty, this would be greatly appreciated by
those of us running more conservative enterprise distributions.

Cheers

Tom

-- 
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/CAFHbX1L%2BxkpR%3DJ6K%2BPTvD6OZT34ZPDgw62HXnUmi5BUrPOm5%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

So you all want to do a one time exception to our guidance of of "Typically 
we will support a Python version up to and including the first Django LTS 
release whose security support ends after security support for that version 
of Python ends." and support Python 3.4 for how long? Or revise the 
guidance?

On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 8:16:02 AM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, Florian Apolloner  
> wrote: 
>
> >In the end (in my experience), people are using Django everywhere and 
> part 
> >of the usage also comes from the fact that it's not that hard to deploy 
> for 
> >sysadmins since python is available anywhere; compiling a new Python + 
> >infrastructure around it is something else again and requires a lot of 
> >change requests in some companies. 
>
> In practical terms it makes a big difference. Remember <
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/qCjfOu-FPxQ/discussion>,
>  
> that prompted a change of LTS policy? 
>
> *Anything* that makes the transition easier is to be welcomed, and that 
> doesn't just mean technically easier, it also means easier to think about 
> and to talk about to project managers and clients and web project owners. 
>
> Reassurance in time of change counts for a great deal. When someone gets 
> to spend a day or two basking in the glory of a top item on Hacker News 
> because he wrote a "Don't go to Python 3" article, there is clearly some 
> reassuring to be done. 
>
> If the technical cost of supporting 3.4 in Django 2.0 is not too high, I 
> feel it would be valuable to have it. 
>
> The actual technical justification for keeping it may be weak, but 
> barriers to adoption are not always technical ones anyway, and my 
> preference would be to keep them as low as possible. 
>
> Daniele 
>
>

-- 
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/4061bff0-5f24-49e9-83bf-7171662543c3%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Aymeric Augustin]

Hello,

I agreed with Florian and Daniele. Python 3.4 will be supported until March 
2019, giving it over 1 year of overlap with Django 2.0, including the entire 
mainstream support period.

I don’t expect supporting Python 3.4 to be a burden or dropping it to allow 
large gains. The language-level differences with Python 3.5 and 3.6 are 
minimal, unless I missed things that matter for Django, that is, allow us to 
remove problematic code.

It’s a different story from Python 2.4 vs. 2.5 vs. 2.6: back then 
`except Exception as exc` would break older Pythons until someone reported it 
and we didn’t have CI. Good times.

Perhaps we could update the support policy to say: Django X.Y will support 
Python versions that are under security support until the end of mainstream 
support for Django X.Y. The difference with the current policy is “mainstream 
support” instead of “extended support”.

Without changing the official policy, I think it would be nice to be more 
lenient with supported Python 3.x versions in the version of Django than drops 
Python 2. This isn’t a technical argument, it’s a marketing / developer 
relations argument. That doesn’t make it invalid :-)

And even if we keep support for Python 3.4 we’ll still be make our lives 
incredibly easier by dropping support for Python 2.

Best regards,

-- 
Aymeric.

-- 
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/54E5855F-191B-49CD-9319-759CBD1BF81E%40polytechnique.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Daniele Procida]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, Florian Apolloner  wrote:

>In the end (in my experience), people are using Django everywhere and part 
>of the usage also comes from the fact that it's not that hard to deploy for 
>sysadmins since python is available anywhere; compiling a new Python + 
>infrastructure around it is something else again and requires a lot of 
>change requests in some companies.

In practical terms it makes a big difference. Remember 
,
 that prompted a change of LTS policy?

*Anything* that makes the transition easier is to be welcomed, and that doesn't 
just mean technically easier, it also means easier to think about and to talk 
about to project managers and clients and web project owners. 

Reassurance in time of change counts for a great deal. When someone gets to 
spend a day or two basking in the glory of a top item on Hacker News because he 
wrote a "Don't go to Python 3" article, there is clearly some reassuring to be 
done.

If the technical cost of supporting 3.4 in Django 2.0 is not too high, I feel 
it would be valuable to have it.

The actual technical justification for keeping it may be weak, but barriers to 
adoption are not always technical ones anyway, and my preference would be to 
keep them as low as possible.

Daniele

-- 
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/20170106131548.2143269717%40mail.wservices.ch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Florian Apolloner]

"EDIT://" Oh, and while it is true that it is a bit more work for us to 
support multiple python versions, I've never seen it that bad. Installing 
more CI runners which have the matching python versions does not hurt that 
much either. Actually it might nowadays even be easier on CentOS than on 
Ubuntu given that the deadsnakes repo is somewhat dead nowadays if I 
understood that correctly.

-- 
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/b815468d-345f-43ad-a392-ff93b19bf1b6%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]

After thinking a bit more: Are there any concrete reasons to drop 3.4/3.5 
aside from new features? Sure, security is an issue, but looking at the 
issues with cookie parsing we would have been better off by immediately 
fixing ourself instead of waiting for python (same goes for XML). So in the 
end, while I usually advocate for security and up2date systems, I do not 
think we gain much by dropping python 3.4 and/or 3.5.

I cannot speak for everyone else, but I do have the feeling that Django 
will get somewhat annoying to deploy for me (Don't get me wrong, I am 
getting paid to do that, but other people are not in such a lucky situation 
and I'd still like to see Django grow in enterprise environments). We are 
on RedHat 7, which I'll certainly stay on for a while. I can probably fetch 
newer python versions from IUS, but then I'll have to recompile mod_wsgi 
etc… Given that RedHat does not package Django at all, I am running from 
the upstream releases, which is perfectly fine for me -- but it would be 
great if I can use somewhat newer Django versions too.

In the end (in my experience), people are using Django everywhere and part 
of the usage also comes from the fact that it's not that hard to deploy for 
sysadmins since python is available anywhere; compiling a new Python + 
infrastructure around it is something else again and requires a lot of 
change requests in some companies.

No matter how we decide, I'd like to see python 3.4 supported on Django 2.0 
to ensure that people that wanna upgrade can at least try the first 
py3-only version without having to upgrade their systems (Ubuntu Trusty is 
still on 3.4 and still supported). And then maybe try to get some feedback 
from some companies and the versions of python they are using on Django 2.0.

Cheers,
Florian


On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>
> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python 
> version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security 
> support ends after security support for that version of Python ends."
>
> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close to 
> Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
> that. Any objections?
>
> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
> 3.6 feature:
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>

-- 
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/6f7124e6-e00a-4cf6-9fca-91ee1c8dd91c%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 Asif,

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:10:40 PM UTC+1, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>
> django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be 
> released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this 
> should also be taken as consideration while deciding.
>

What comes out __after__ the release of Django is the least of my concerns. 
The more important thing here are the still supported LTS releases and how 
disruptive that change would be. OS releases after Django's release are in 
general not an issue (aside from new bugs here and there, but that is 
nothing anyone can predict).

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/4374e0c9-83bf-4bee-ac4a-9beae00fbfec%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,

django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be 
released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this 
should also be taken as consideration while deciding.

Thanks 

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 1:00:00 AM UTC+6, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> August 2016: PyPy gets funding from Mozilla for Python 3.5 support
> "Within the next year, we plan to use the money to pay four core PyPy 
> developers half-time to work on the missing features and on some of the big 
> performance and cpyext issues. This should speed up the progress of 
> catching up with Python 3.x significantly. "
>
> https://morepypy.blogspot.com/2016/08/pypy-gets-funding-from-mozilla-for.html
>
> According to http://pypy.org/py3donate.html, it seems that anyone who 
> cares can donate to the effort of porting PyPy to Python 3. Django 
> 1.11/Python 2 will be supported until 2020 anyway.
>
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
>> Mhm, just thought about the fact that this means we are also dropping 
>> support for PyPy and Jython -- not sure about the Jyton usage, but loosing 
>> PyPy sounds sad, how far along are there python 3 efforts? It looks like it 
>> is/was close to 3.3 according to 
>> https://morepypy.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/pypy-gets-funding-from-mozilla-for.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Florian
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 11:03:22 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, Django 1.11 is the last version to support Python 2.7. This is 
>>> documented in the 1.11 release notes, in 
>>> https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions, and 
>>> elsewhere. 
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:37:06 PM UTC-5, MMeent wrote:

 I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not 
 supported up to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this 
 case). If you want to use long-term stability and/or support for current 
 Python versions, you should use the current django LTS version, which will 
 be 1.11. I am perfectly fine with django dropping support for a python 
 version that won't be supported for over 1 1/2 years of that (major) 
 versions support cycle.

 Noting that python 2.x also has an EOL in 2020, this one being half a 
 year earlier (March 16th vs September 13th), will django 2.0 drop 
 python 2.7 support, or will the 2.x series continue support for 2.7? I 
 cant 
 really find definite docs on that. 
 (https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ talks about 
 it but is not completely clear)

 If django drops 2.7 for django 2.x, a lot of code will probably be 
 reworked, and seeing the 3.6 features I would love to see those available 
 directly while removing/refactoring the compat-layer. e.g. f-strings 
 instead of "{}".format or %-formatting, as it is less prone to random 
 bugs like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6343 .


 -Matthias

 On 27 Dec 2016 21:25, "Florian Apolloner"  wrote:

> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that 
> Redhat is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even 
> like 
> to see 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to 
> drop it. Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on 
> Python 3.4. So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets 
> keep 
> it as long as it is not too much work.
>
> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets 
> make the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do 
> not want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to 
> get 
> the latest python and therefor Django).
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next 
>> major release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>>
>> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a 
>> Python version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose 
>> security support ends after security support for that version of Python 
>> ends."
>>
>> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently 
>> close to Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is 
>> Python 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility 
>> until 
>> Django 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much 
>> advantage to that. Any objections?
>>
>> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a 
>> Python 3.6 feature:
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
>> 

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

[Tim Graham]

August 2016: PyPy gets funding from Mozilla for Python 3.5 support
"Within the next year, we plan to use the money to pay four core PyPy 
developers half-time to work on the missing features and on some of the big 
performance and cpyext issues. This should speed up the progress of 
catching up with Python 3.x significantly. "
https://morepypy.blogspot.com/2016/08/pypy-gets-funding-from-mozilla-for.html

According to http://pypy.org/py3donate.html, it seems that anyone who cares 
can donate to the effort of porting PyPy to Python 3. Django 1.11/Python 2 
will be supported until 2020 anyway.

On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner wrote:

> Mhm, just thought about the fact that this means we are also dropping 
> support for PyPy and Jython -- not sure about the Jyton usage, but loosing 
> PyPy sounds sad, how far along are there python 3 efforts? It looks like it 
> is/was close to 3.3 according to 
> https://morepypy.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/pypy-gets-funding-from-mozilla-for.html
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 11:03:22 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> Yes, Django 1.11 is the last version to support Python 2.7. This is 
>> documented in the 1.11 release notes, in 
>> https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions, and 
>> elsewhere. 
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:37:06 PM UTC-5, MMeent wrote:
>>>
>>> I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not supported 
>>> up to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this case). If 
>>> you want to use long-term stability and/or support for current Python 
>>> versions, you should use the current django LTS version, which will be 
>>> 1.11. I am perfectly fine with django dropping support for a python version 
>>> that won't be supported for over 1 1/2 years of that (major) versions 
>>> support cycle.
>>>
>>> Noting that python 2.x also has an EOL in 2020, this one being half a 
>>> year earlier (March 16th vs September 13th), will django 2.0 drop 
>>> python 2.7 support, or will the 2.x series continue support for 2.7? I cant 
>>> really find definite docs on that. 
>>> (https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ talks about 
>>> it but is not completely clear)
>>>
>>> If django drops 2.7 for django 2.x, a lot of code will probably be 
>>> reworked, and seeing the 3.6 features I would love to see those available 
>>> directly while removing/refactoring the compat-layer. e.g. f-strings 
>>> instead of "{}".format or %-formatting, as it is less prone to random 
>>> bugs like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6343 .
>>>
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>> On 27 Dec 2016 21:25, "Florian Apolloner"  wrote:
>>>
 Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
 wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that 
 Redhat is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like 
 to see 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to 
 drop it. Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on 
 Python 3.4. So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets 
 keep 
 it as long as it is not too much work.

 Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets 
 make the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do 
 not want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get 
 the latest python and therefor Django).

 Cheers,
 Florian

 On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>
> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a 
> Python version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose 
> security support ends after security support for that version of Python 
> ends."
>
> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close 
> to Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until 
> Django 
> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage 
> to 
> that. Any objections?
>
> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a 
> Python 3.6 feature:
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>
 -- 
 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
 

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

[Florian Apolloner]

Mhm, just thought about the fact that this means we are also dropping 
support for PyPy and Jython -- not sure about the Jyton usage, but loosing 
PyPy sounds sad, how far along are there python 3 efforts? It looks like it 
is/was close to 3.3 according to 
https://morepypy.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/pypy-gets-funding-from-mozilla-for.html

Cheers,
Florian

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 11:03:22 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Yes, Django 1.11 is the last version to support Python 2.7. This is 
> documented in the 1.11 release notes, in 
> https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions, and 
> elsewhere. 
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:37:06 PM UTC-5, MMeent wrote:
>>
>> I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not supported 
>> up to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this case). If 
>> you want to use long-term stability and/or support for current Python 
>> versions, you should use the current django LTS version, which will be 
>> 1.11. I am perfectly fine with django dropping support for a python version 
>> that won't be supported for over 1 1/2 years of that (major) versions 
>> support cycle.
>>
>> Noting that python 2.x also has an EOL in 2020, this one being half a 
>> year earlier (March 16th vs September 13th), will django 2.0 drop python 
>> 2.7 support, or will the 2.x series continue support for 2.7? I cant really 
>> find definite docs on that. 
>> (https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ talks about 
>> it but is not completely clear)
>>
>> If django drops 2.7 for django 2.x, a lot of code will probably be 
>> reworked, and seeing the 3.6 features I would love to see those available 
>> directly while removing/refactoring the compat-layer. e.g. f-strings 
>> instead of "{}".format or %-formatting, as it is less prone to random 
>> bugs like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6343 .
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 27 Dec 2016 21:25, "Florian Apolloner"  wrote:
>>
>>> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
>>> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat 
>>> is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 
>>> 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it. 
>>> Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4. 
>>> So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long 
>>> as it is not too much work.
>>>
>>> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make 
>>> the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not 
>>> want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the 
>>> latest python and therefor Django).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Florian
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:

 When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
 release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."

 Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a 
 Python version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose 
 security support ends after security support for that version of Python 
 ends."

 Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close 
 to Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
 that. Any objections?

 p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
 3.6 feature:
 https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
 should use secrets on Python 3.6+

>>> -- 
>>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/f1da2b09-0309-46e6-9a7c-75ea9cd6f91b%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>> 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 

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

[Karen Tracey]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Claude Paroz  wrote:

> Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?
>

No idea. It was held in moderation as "possible spam" for reason only
Google Groups knows. When GG does this, it does not send moderators a note
about it until 3 or 4 days later. This one I happened to see when I went to
moderate a post from a first-time poster, and I sent both through. It came
through in email. No idea why in the group it shows up as "deleted". Maybe
it will re-appear in the group eventually...

Karen

-- 
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/CACS9raeLU%2BtPGTx4ZQWmf0XhS7b-%2BK7b%3DykXGQsn8GvLjfDRsw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

There may be a bug in Google Groups -- I've seen my own messages deleted 
like that.

On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-5, Claude Paroz wrote:
>
> Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?
>
> Claude
>

-- 
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/48044af8-b46a-428e-82bf-8a28d7e0b493%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Claude Paroz]

Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?

Claude

-- 
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/d8402d65-e24b-46f5-86d5-dfd6f595cbbc%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Aymeric Augustin]

> On 28 Dec 2016, at 15:53, Claude Paroz  wrote:
> 
> Dropping Python 2 will already be a strong progress and might allow nice 
> improvements for Django.

+1

The Python 3 transition will materialize brutally for many developers when they 
can’t upgrade Django anymore without upgrading Python as well.

I’m in favor of not making it more difficult to upgrade to Python 3 by not 
supporting versions available on Debian or Ubuntu stable.

(This isn’t an argument for supporting a particular version; I didn’t check the 
timeline precisely; it's a general inclination.)

-- 
Aymeric.

-- 
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/A8860E5A-553E-440A-B73D-43372EC34252%40polytechnique.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Claude Paroz]

I would like to voice my support for Florian's arguments. It's not only 
RedHat, Debian is also concerned. The current Jessie stable version which 
will be supported probably until mid-2018 is Python 3.4, and the upcoming 
stable version will most probably be Python 3.5. So a strong -1 for 
dropping 3.5 for Django 2.0. For Python 3.4, we might bring the issue to 
the technical board.
Dropping Python 2 will already be a strong progress and might allow nice 
improvements for Django.

Claude

Le mardi 27 décembre 2016 21:25:39 UTC+1, Florian Apolloner a écrit :
>
> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat 
> is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 
> 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it. 
> Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4. 
> So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long 
> as it is not too much work.
>
> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make 
> the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not 
> want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the 
> latest python and therefor Django).
>
> 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/fb8c83ee-c050-4d48-8db5-a8244c9cb489%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

I'm okay with keeping Python 3.5 support around. I agree it would be a bit 
impractical to release Django 2.0 in December without being able to run it 
on the most recent Ubuntu LTS.

If we dropped Python 3.5 support after Django 2.1 that would give Django 
(2.1) support until December 2019 (or April 2020 if you had stuck with 1.11 
LTS). Hopefully most Ubuntu LTS users would be migrated to 18.04 by then 
and whatever Python is included there. I guess we'll evaluate it then.

Thanks for the feedback!

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 5:33:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Manfre wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:52 PM Tim Graham  > wrote:
>
>> Collin raised a fair point in #django-dev that Ubuntu 16.04 bundles 
>> Python 3.5. I guess 16.10 will include Python 3.6 -- that will be released 
>> before Django 2.0 in December 2017.
>>
>> Presumably any Python's we don't drop for 2.0 we will have to support 
>> until the next LTS (which means 2 more years where we can't use any Python 
>> 3.6+ features without extra work to support them on 3.4, 3.5), or else we 
>> risk stranding Django users on some Django version like 2.0 or 2.1 where 
>> they could have received security updates for longer if they stayed on on 
>> 1.11 LTS. I don't like that situation.
>>
>> How would you revise our Python support policy?
>>
>
> I don't think Django should support versions of Python longer than Python 
> is willing to support them. If this means dropping support for a version of 
> Python in a non-LTS, then we should do that. As long as it is sufficiently 
> documented, users will be able to make an informed decision about whether 
> to stay on the previous LTS for longer Python version support, or move on 
> to our non-LTS releases to reap the rewards of the newer Django version. 
> Regardless what they choose, when they end up on the next LTS, they would 
> have likely updated Django and Python independently along the way.
>  
>
>> In my mind, the purpose of LTS is for conservative organizations that 
>> don't want to use the latest Python, Django, etc. Are Red Hat users on 
>> Python 3.4 demanding the latest Django? Maybe if Django is more aggressive 
>> about dropping old Pythons, those users will demand newer Pythons.
>>
>
> At the organizations I've worked at, the purpose of LTS was to allow them 
> to defer migrating versions for a few years, and not to avoid using the 
> latest version now. They would jump on to an LTS release immediately if it 
> lined up with their planning.
>
> If Red Hat users will be stuck on 3.4, then I feel the burden for 
> supporting it (backporting security fixes) should fall on Red Hat, not 
> Django. We should make it as easy as possible for them to do so (e.g. 
> pre-notification), but not by adding more support burden (conditional code, 
> build matricies, etc.) to Django or preventing us from using newer features 
> from Python.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Manfre
>

-- 
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/d9484416-1aa0-406c-a9c8-f8153b350482%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Michael Manfre]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:52 PM Tim Graham  wrote:

> Collin raised a fair point in #django-dev that Ubuntu 16.04 bundles Python
> 3.5. I guess 16.10 will include Python 3.6 -- that will be released before
> Django 2.0 in December 2017.
>
> Presumably any Python's we don't drop for 2.0 we will have to support
> until the next LTS (which means 2 more years where we can't use any Python
> 3.6+ features without extra work to support them on 3.4, 3.5), or else we
> risk stranding Django users on some Django version like 2.0 or 2.1 where
> they could have received security updates for longer if they stayed on on
> 1.11 LTS. I don't like that situation.
>
> How would you revise our Python support policy?
>

I don't think Django should support versions of Python longer than Python
is willing to support them. If this means dropping support for a version of
Python in a non-LTS, then we should do that. As long as it is sufficiently
documented, users will be able to make an informed decision about whether
to stay on the previous LTS for longer Python version support, or move on
to our non-LTS releases to reap the rewards of the newer Django version.
Regardless what they choose, when they end up on the next LTS, they would
have likely updated Django and Python independently along the way.


> In my mind, the purpose of LTS is for conservative organizations that
> don't want to use the latest Python, Django, etc. Are Red Hat users on
> Python 3.4 demanding the latest Django? Maybe if Django is more aggressive
> about dropping old Pythons, those users will demand newer Pythons.
>

At the organizations I've worked at, the purpose of LTS was to allow them
to defer migrating versions for a few years, and not to avoid using the
latest version now. They would jump on to an LTS release immediately if it
lined up with their planning.

If Red Hat users will be stuck on 3.4, then I feel the burden for
supporting it (backporting security fixes) should fall on Red Hat, not
Django. We should make it as easy as possible for them to do so (e.g.
pre-notification), but not by adding more support burden (conditional code,
build matricies, etc.) to Django or preventing us from using newer features
from Python.

Regards,
Michael Manfre

-- 
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/CAGdCwBs4v5nQNBe5ySb6ppneyWk%3DyK%2ByLQOb0ga4HaTJgTWfpA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

Yes, Django 1.11 is the last version to support Python 2.7. This is 
documented in the 1.11 release notes, in 
https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions, and elsewhere. 

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:37:06 PM UTC-5, MMeent wrote:
>
> I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not supported 
> up to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this case). If 
> you want to use long-term stability and/or support for current Python 
> versions, you should use the current django LTS version, which will be 
> 1.11. I am perfectly fine with django dropping support for a python version 
> that won't be supported for over 1 1/2 years of that (major) versions 
> support cycle.
>
> Noting that python 2.x also has an EOL in 2020, this one being half a year 
> earlier (March 16th vs September 13th), will django 2.0 drop python 2.7 
> support, or will the 2.x series continue support for 2.7? I cant really 
> find definite docs on that. 
> (https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ talks about it 
> but is not completely clear)
>
> If django drops 2.7 for django 2.x, a lot of code will probably be 
> reworked, and seeing the 3.6 features I would love to see those available 
> directly while removing/refactoring the compat-layer. e.g. f-strings 
> instead of "{}".format or %-formatting, as it is less prone to random 
> bugs like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6343 .
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 27 Dec 2016 21:25, "Florian Apolloner"  > wrote:
>
>> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
>> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat 
>> is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 
>> 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it. 
>> Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4. 
>> So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long 
>> as it is not too much work.
>>
>> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make 
>> the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not 
>> want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the 
>> latest python and therefor Django).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Florian
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>>
>>> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
>>> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>>>
>>> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a 
>>> Python version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose 
>>> security support ends after security support for that version of Python 
>>> ends."
>>>
>>> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close 
>>> to Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
>>> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
>>> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
>>> that. Any objections?
>>>
>>> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
>>> 3.6 feature:
>>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
>>> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>>>
>> -- 
>> 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-develop...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@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/f1da2b09-0309-46e6-9a7c-75ea9cd6f91b%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> 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/ac2f74ea-3a4e-42e0-9a50-3b1df3fbb45c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Matthias welp]

I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not supported up
to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this case). If you
want to use long-term stability and/or support for current Python versions,
you should use the current django LTS version, which will be 1.11. I am
perfectly fine with django dropping support for a python version that won't
be supported for over 1 1/2 years of that (major) versions support cycle.

Noting that python 2.x also has an EOL in 2020, this one being half a year
earlier (March 16th vs September 13th), will django 2.0 drop python 2.7
support, or will the 2.x series continue support for 2.7? I cant really
find definite docs on that.
(https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ talks about it
but is not completely clear)

If django drops 2.7 for django 2.x, a lot of code will probably be
reworked, and seeing the 3.6 features I would love to see those available
directly while removing/refactoring the compat-layer. e.g. f-strings
instead of "{}".format or %-formatting, as it is less prone to random bugs
like https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6343 .


-Matthias

On 27 Dec 2016 21:25, "Florian Apolloner"  wrote:

> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not
> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat
> is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see
> 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it.
> Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4.
> So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long
> as it is not too much work.
>
> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make
> the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not
> want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the
> latest python and therefor Django).
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major
>> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>>
>> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python
>> version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security
>> support ends after security support for that version of Python ends."
>>
>> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close to
>> Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python
>> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django
>> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to
>> that. Any objections?
>>
>> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python
>> 3.6 feature:
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto
>> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>>
> --
> 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/f1da2b09-0309-46e6-9a7c-
> 75ea9cd6f91b%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> 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/CAEze2Wi7TWyvfaS9bkDaN1vwXv%2BnfJBpz0cjVxexbw7t-G1rAg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

[Tim Graham]

Collin raised a fair point in #django-dev that Ubuntu 16.04 bundles Python 
3.5. I guess 16.10 will include Python 3.6 -- that will be released before 
Django 2.0 in December 2017.

Presumably any Python's we don't drop for 2.0 we will have to support until 
the next LTS (which means 2 more years where we can't use any Python 3.6+ 
features without extra work to support them on 3.4, 3.5), or else we risk 
stranding Django users on some Django version like 2.0 or 2.1 where they 
could have received security updates for longer if they stayed on on 1.11 
LTS. I don't like that situation.

How would you revise our Python support policy?

In my mind, the purpose of LTS is for conservative organizations that don't 
want to use the latest Python, Django, etc. Are Red Hat users on Python 3.4 
demanding the latest Django? Maybe if Django is more aggressive about 
dropping old Pythons, those users will demand newer Pythons.

It's hard to quantify how much extra work it is to support old Python 
versions, but besides the overhead of conditional code, dropping old 
versions also brings the possibility to use new features in Python. It also 
increases the size of build matrices across the entire Django ecosystem 
since most packages follow Django's version support.

https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions
https://docs.python.org/devguide/#status-of-python-branches

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:25:39 PM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
> Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
> wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat 
> is on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 
> 3.4 still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it. 
> Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4. 
> So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long 
> as it is not too much work.
>
> Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make 
> the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not 
> want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the 
> latest python and therefor Django).
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>>
>> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
>> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>>
>> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python 
>> version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security 
>> support ends after security support for that version of Python ends."
>>
>> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close to 
>> Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
>> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
>> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
>> that. Any objections?
>>
>> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
>> 3.6 feature:
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
>> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>>
>

-- 
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/8a4bacd4-8f59-4d84-8ef0-4d7a9d1d5fc4%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]

Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not 
wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat is 
on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 3.4 
still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it. 
Fwiw, Ubuntu Trusty which is LTS and still supported also is on Python 3.4. 
So unless there are compelling arguments to drop 3.4, lets keep it as long 
as it is not too much work.

Either way, I am completely against dropping Python 3.5 now -- lets make 
the Django 2.0 migration not more painful than it has to be (ie I do not 
want to force people to upgrade existing supported systems just to get the 
latest python and therefor Django).

Cheers,
Florian

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major 
> release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
>
> Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python 
> version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security 
> support ends after security support for that version of Python ends."
>
> Python 3.5's EOL is September 2020 which I think is sufficiently close to 
> Django 1.11's EOL of April 2020 that we could say Django 2.0 is Python 
> 3.6+. The alternative is not to drop Python 3.5 compatibility until Django 
> 2.2 LTS which is supported until April 2022. I don't see much advantage to 
> that. Any objections?
>
> p.s. There is already a ticket suggesting to take advantage of a Python 
> 3.6 feature:
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27635* - *django.utils.crypto 
> should use secrets on Python 3.6+
>

-- 
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/f1da2b09-0309-46e6-9a7c-75ea9cd6f91b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.