Re: Admin list view counting

On Wednesday 09 August 2017 00:40:30 Josh Smeaton wrote: > We use the explain analyze method at work, but I don't think it's an > appropriate thing to include in core. > Agreed. > I'm not so sure about providing count estimates in core, but I don't fully > grok how the `estimate_above` would

Re: Admin list view counting

We use the explain analyze method at work, but I don't think it's an appropriate thing to include in core. I agree that these changes should be a function of the paginator and that being able to pass in a could also be very useful. I'm not so sure about providing count estimates in core, but

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.