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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 +

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.