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

add like

i am new in django devlopment so i have no idea for how to put like on any blog and increase it -- 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

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: Methodology for increasing the number of PBKDF2 iterations

Tim, I've sent you a model I've assembled recently for your review. I'll work towards making it more user-friendly (I.e., NOT in Apple Numbers format) and share it here for the whole community. But for here and now, I would at the very least assume that the cost of a brute-force attack on

Re: add like

Hello, please redirect questions about the usage of Django to django-users -- this mailing list is about the development of Django itself. Good luck with your endeavors, Florian On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 1:33:26 PM UTC+1, Yadav Pankaj wrote: > > i am new in django devlopment so i have

Re: Methodology for increasing the number of PBKDF2 iterations

I increased the iterations to 100,000 on master (targeting Django 2.0). It would be nice to determine a guideline for how to determine future increases. On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 12:55:25 PM UTC-5, Martin Koistinen wrote: > > Tobias, > > Thanks for the comprehensive benchmarking and

Re: Check if dependencies are up to date

On 16 January 2017 at 15:36, Adam Johnson wrote: > The signals as proposed can't really be used for the staticfiles override, > since that requires subclassing and wrapping a function to change the > handler ( source >