CommandTemplate Behavior Is Inconsistent

[John Gooding]

To be clear, I am not saying there is a bug. It does what it is programmed 
to do. I am saying the expected behavior of the API / CLI / whatever you 
want to call it is inconsistent.

I am not going to get into an argument of what a "proper" django structure 
is, etc. I want to focus purely on the behavior of the command.

A more "normal" setup might look like this:

/repository
  manage.py
  /project
settings.py
urls.py
etc..
  /polls
models.py
etc...

When you run `python manage.py startapp polls` from the same directory as 
manage.py, it will create the polls directory for you, normal expected 
behavior.

Another, equally as valid setup looks like this:

repository/
  manage.py
  /project
settings.py
urls.py
etc...
/polls
  models.py
  etc...
/my_app_2
  models.py
  etc...

Where all of the apps live in the project directory, or perhaps some other 
directory. Now if you try to execute `python manage.py startapp polls 
project`, it will complain that the directory doesn't exist and that you 
need to create it first. However if you `cd` into /project, and run `python 
../manage.py startapp polls`, it will create the directory for you, even 
though it doesn't exist.

My ultimate point is this, the behavior of the command should not depend on 
where it is ran. It should only care if the directory already exists or 
not, which it does check, but the applied behavior of that check is 
different depending on if you're in the line 68 if block 

 or 
the line 76 else block 
.
 
The applied behavior ought to be the same, regardless of where the command 
is ran from. 

-- 
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/dfe324ce-3718-4379-b20e-a2703973869c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Make Development More Accessible

[John Gooding]

I'd like to propose moving Django issues to github and make a real decision 
on it here in this thread. If there has been a recent discussion on this I 
apologize, but searching for issue tracking / github links to about every 
thread ever posted here.

I believe this would lower the barrier to entry and to help promote 
community involvement. People are already there, people already use it, and 
we already do pull requests there. Now I could be wrong here, but I also 
feel that it would improve and promote discussion about changes and feature 
additions to Django, because right now they are pretty hidden away in the 
current system. 

I'd also like to see the inclusion of a "discussion" label or similar for 
issues. I think many of the conversations here on this forum would be much 
better off as github issues. I see a lot of great stuff, and it's not clear 
at all what the status is, has it moved forward, been officially denied? 
etc. If they are github issues they will have definitive resolutions, 
whatever it may be, and links to relevant code, PR's etc if needed.

I think there is a huge amount to gain by consolidating the ticket system 
and many of the discussions on this forum into github's issue tracker. I 
don't see any reason why it wouldn't be wroth the effort, and we only have 
much to gain as a community from it. But that's just my 2 cents. I'd love 
to hear what others think, for or against it.

John


-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/da5ca4b1-fb84-4ed4-b2cb-324b8bea9c42%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Make Development More Accessible

[John Gooding]

To put it short, the barrier to entry is far too high and difficult for 
newcomers and even long time users of Django. 

I agree with others sentiment that there isn't anything that trac can do 
which github issues cannot, especially for the overwhelming majority of 
tickets. As a long time user of Django myself, I agree with Andrew Godwins 
statement on Django loosing many contributors over the years and being in 
largely maintenance mode. 

I believe this has contributed significantly to the current culture that 
things are fine as a third party application and that most big new features 
or additions are simply too difficult, or not worth the effort etc. There 
is very much a culture of "it can't be, or wont be done", and is quite 
pessimistic. That's simply one point of my assessment about the current 
culture, and isn't meant to be derogatory towards the current contributors 
and the fine work they are doing.

I agree that something like django-async, big, bold, new features are 
exactly what Django needs to get new people on board and actively 
participating in the project. The barrier to that should be as low as 
possible, and the entire development process should be as consolidated, 
clear, and accessible as possible. That's why I think moving the majority 
of this forum and trac to github issues is the right move.

For a couple of recent-ish background posts that discuss much of this:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/aiyE__qSHBY/discussion

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/5CVsR9FSqmg/qKD3QCrLCAAJ

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 11:24:45 PM UTC-7, John Gooding wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose moving Django issues to github and make a real 
> decision on it here in this thread. If there has been a recent discussion 
> on this I apologize, but searching for issue tracking / github links to 
> about every thread ever posted here.
>
> I believe this would lower the barrier to entry and to help promote 
> community involvement. People are already there, people already use it, and 
> we already do pull requests there. Now I could be wrong here, but I also 
> feel that it would improve and promote discussion about changes and feature 
> additions to Django, because right now they are pretty hidden away in the 
> current system. 
>
> I'd also like to see the inclusion of a "discussion" label or similar for 
> issues. I think many of the conversations here on this forum would be much 
> better off as github issues. I see a lot of great stuff, and it's not clear 
> at all what the status is, has it moved forward, been officially denied? 
> etc. If they are github issues they will have definitive resolutions, 
> whatever it may be, and links to relevant code, PR's etc if needed.
>
> I think there is a huge amount to gain by consolidating the ticket system 
> and many of the discussions on this forum into github's issue tracker. I 
> don't see any reason why it wouldn't be wroth the effort, and we only have 
> much to gain as a community from it. But that's just my 2 cents. I'd love 
> to hear what others think, for or against it.
>
> John
>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0daef247-f5fd-486a-b07f-2d8ab79eea9f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Make Development More Accessible

[John Gooding]

Hi Aymeric,

You bring up a lot of good points. There will undoubtedly be challenges and 
huge amount of work in moving to a new system, or implementing any big 
sweeping changes, however, I truly honestly believe that it would be worth 
it in the long run, and the payoff would far outweigh the cost.

As far as Microsoft owning github, etc I think it is almost moot. Any 
process will have some amount of vendor lock in, whether github, atlassian 
(jira & bitbucket parent company), or even gitlab. I think what is 
important is to pick one system as a community that we are happy with. Any 
one of those three could do what is ultimately needed, which is a 
centralized and consistent development platform.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 12:33:59 AM UTC-7, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
> Hello John,
>
> This was discussed before, when we moved from self-hosted svn to 
> GitHub-hosted git, but I'm not sure there are public archives of all 
> discussions.
>
> As far as I remember, the main points to tackle are:
>
> 1. Does GitHub allow "anonymous triage" i.e. labelling, closing, and 
> reopening issues by non-committers? I think there was a recent announcement 
> in this area. I didn't check the details. Previously, bot-powered 
> workarounds were suggested, but they wouldn't provide a good user 
> experience. You want discoverable buttons, not a cheat sheet of magic 
> comments.
>
> 2. Does the GitHub UI scale to thousands of issues? In theory, any 
> classification system can be reproduced with namespaced labels e.g. 
> "component:ORM", "status:ready-for-checkin", etc. In practice, it's 
> unlikely to be as convenient as what currently exists on Trac.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I always found GitHub issues hard to use when I 
> had more than on page of issues. Indeed, at that point, I need a labelling 
> system to filter issues. Then I need to keep all the rules of that system 
> in my head instead of having the UI guide me — and prevent me from 
> infringing the system...
>
> 3. How do we migrate issues history from Trac to GitHub? Preserving 
> comment authorship doesn't seem obvious, especially for authors who don't 
> have the same username on Trac and GitHub or authors who don't have a 
> GitHub account.
>
> Initially an effort was made to sync usernames of core devs between Trac 
> and GitHub to prevent security problems but that's a small subset of 
> contributors.
>
> 4. Are we still able to export everything from GitHub and move on to the 
> next thing? Perhaps there's an obvious answer. I didn't look. Usually 
> Django takes a pragmatic position: we won't reject GitHub outright because 
> it isn't open source. However, we wouldn't want to lock ourselves into a 
> platform we don't control.
>
> Who would have bet, three years ago, that GitHub would be the property of 
> Microsoft today? What if Microsoft sells it to Oracle in three years? It's 
> nice to keep our options open :-)
>
> We put the code there because we were confident that we could pull the git 
> history. Then everyone started using pull requests, which was likely a good 
> thing, but wasn't really planned or thought through, and I don't think we 
> can export PR comments meaningfully. GitHub did some good vendor lock in 
> there.
>
> 5. How do we preserve links to SVN commits? Currently, they're redirected 
> on https://code.djangoproject.com/ with this nginx rule:
>
> rewrite ^/changeset/(\d+)/?$ 
> https://www.djangoproject.com/svntogit/$1/ permanent;
>
> and then redirected again by this application:
>
> https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/tree/master/svntogit
>
> It would be nice to preserve these links in issues copied from Trac to 
> GitHub, which probably means pre-processing comments to rewrite links.
>
> There may be more, but that's what comes to mind!
>
> A process DEP 
> <https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/final/0001-dep-process.rst#dep-types>
>  is 
> the way to go to propose this change.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -- 
> Aymeric.
>
>
>
> On 7 Aug 2019, at 08:24, John Gooding > 
> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose moving Django issues to github and make a real 
> decision on it here in this thread. If there has been a recent discussion 
> on this I apologize, but searching for issue tracking / github links to 
> about every thread ever posted here.
>
> I believe this would lower the barrier to entry and to help promote 
> community involvement. People are already there, people already use it, and 
> we already do pull requests there. Now I could be wrong here, but I also 
> feel that it would impr

Re: Make Development More Accessible

[John Gooding]

Hi All,

I want to thank you all for your time and input. I'll start doing some 
research into how cpython and others are managing this. I will draw up a 
few options and present them so we can better work out the possibilities 
and details before submitting a process DEP. I don't want to submit one if 
there is not a clear path forward, or a general feeling that it could work 
and be worth it.

As far as will we actually get more engagement, or would it all be for no 
gain? I think the only place there is to go is up. There's 43k stars on 
github and 18k forks. I'll try to get some more concrete numbers about 
current engagement level by looking at the data. It might be worth it to 
then compare this projects of a similar nature / size, though I'm not sure 
how much validity that would have, being apples and oranges.

~John

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 1:47:58 PM UTC-7, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> We actually discussed this a little at the PyCon AU sprints and the 
> consensus was that GitHub issues would be great *if only they were a bit 
> more featureful*.
>
> The problems I feel are specifically an issue:
>
> - Ticket states; this is not easily replicated with labels, while 
> components etc. are mapped slightly more easily
>
> - Assignment of tickets to people outside the organisation - while bots 
> allow triage, I believe taking ticket ownership requires that you are 
> either a member of the organization or have commented on the ticket, which 
> makes the process there a little longer.
>
> - Ticket history, as mentioned (we'd need to preserve ticket numbers and 
> redirect links from the current domain).
>
> Exporting from GitHub seems very possible - exporting pull requests and 
> issues can both be done via the API, though this does, like the bot, need 
> extra work.
>
> This all seems eminently doable, but the question I'd really want everyone 
> to answer is if it's worth the porting effort. I suspect the answer is yes, 
> but this does need a process DEP and some discussion, and maybe also 
> looking at what cpython are doing and comparing and contrasting.
>
> Andrew
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 4:12 AM Carlton Gibson  > wrote:
>
>> The more I use Trac, the more I appreciate its power. I'm normally all 
>> for Progress™ but I'm not sure GitHub's UI is up to it. 
>> (Being able to find the old discussion is super handy: it's not that 
>> often that an idea has not come up before at this stage.) 
>>
>> *I'd be interested to see what a prototype export looks like in a test 
>> GitHub repo. Maybe it's possible... (Note this is in bold.)*
>>
>> Maybe more people would participate, but I'm not sure... Do we just 
>> suspect that? I worry we go to a load of effort for no real gain. 
>>
>> Current input is quite good I'd say. Claude and Simon are regulars. 
>> There's a good number more who make frequent appearances. 
>> I think there's more people commenting than we suspect. (Anyone trying 
>> the export would be able to do numbers I'd guess...)
>>
>> If the new Triaging role on GH would allow "Request a review..." I think 
>> it would be super handy. (But currently that's restricted to the more 
>> powerful roles.) (I'm nagging GH about as best I can but if anyone knows 
>> anyone...)
>>
>> Happy to comment more if people want, but those are the highlights. 
>>
>> C.
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 12:56:18 UTC+2, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>>>
>>> Mariatta has put together a some PEPs for migrating CPython issues over 
>>> to GitHub.
>>>
>>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/ proposing the migration.
>>> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0588/ migration plan.
>>>
>>> Django and Cpython are not the same, so there'll be substantial 
>>> differences. But it's worth familiarising oneself with prior art.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth I'd strongly support such a move just for the 
>>> increase in engagement.
>>>
>>> Carlton, Mariusz, how would you gauge the level of triage activity in 
>>> Trac from non-core members? High/Medium/Low?
>>>
>>> https://github.blog/changelog/2019-05-23-triage-and-maintain-roles-beta/ 
>>> describes 
>>> the new triage and maintain roles, but they're still to be granted to 
>>> trusted individuals (which would be an excellent gateway into full core 
>>> membership if that is the direction Django is going to continue in).
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 7 August 2019 17:46:18 UTC+10, John Gooding

Expand the Scope of Pluggable Secret Keys Ticket

[John Gooding]

Would it be possible to expand the scope of the recently accepted secret 
key rotation ticket to include the ability to live rotate other credentials 
as well, such as the DB credentials?

Or would this be a separate thing all together? 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/django-developers/secret$20keys%7Csort:date/django-developers/jg-eu3HtLHI/V_rbzYKfAQAJ

https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/30360

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4271925d-6198-4847-80a1-fe453a6e4313%40googlegroups.com.