On Nov 27, 2:13 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Solaris: I'm unable to find information detailing which Python
> version ships with various releases of Solaris and OpenSolaris. If
> anyone has that information, please post it in a reply.
Solaris versions prior to 10 did
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Tim Chase
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm somewhere between -0 and -1 on the voting scale regarding
> forced/long-range Python-version deprecation. But when a version
> becomes sufficiently dead weight, slowing down Django's progress
> like 2.3 seems to be
On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
>
> However, I haven't seen any/much expression of *want* that 2.4 be
> dropped any time in the near future (and there are a much larger
> number of 2.4 deployments). I wouldn't schedule that "2.4 will
> be dropped in Django 1.3" timetable, but
James Bennett wrote:
> Apologies for the length of this email,
Thanks, James, for your post-doctoral dissertation on the History
and Cumulative Predicted Future of Python Versions and Their
Interrelations With the Django Development Process. :-) (joking
aside, it was an appreciated and
Le 27 nov. 08 à 02:39, Eduardo O. Padoan a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks --
>>
>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
>> Discuss.
>>
>> Jacob
>
> +1 -- because reusable apps developers could
Apologies for the length of this email, but I've been holding back on
my thoughts about Python version compatibility for a while, mostly due
to the fact that:
1. Until recently, we didn't have a stable Django release series on
which to begin considering the process of dropping support in
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> Jacob
+1 -- because reusable apps developers could all close those
py2.3-related bugs as wontfix. One less cost to share
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 01:42 -0800, mrts wrote:
[...]
> * Python 2.3 is officially not supported by Python developers since
> 2.3.5; it
>doesn't even receive security patches -- so, effectively, everybody
> should
>avoid using it (the same is true for 2.4, 2.4.5 is supposedly the
> last
+1
Update your damn distros. Generators are important :)
On Nov 26, 10:33 am, "Gary Wilson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:23 AM, varikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 7:16 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> However, even saying
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:23 AM, varikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:16 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
>> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
>> our
On Nov 25, 7:16 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
> our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official 3.0 support for 1.1.
I am
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 01:16:00 Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version
> and we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support
> timeline, since our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official
> 3.0 support for 1.1.
On Nov 26, 3:20 am, Julien Phalip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:43 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi folks --
>
> > > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
> our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official 3.0 support
+1 to Malcolm and Julien.
Having a clear roadmap before you make changes is really helpful. I've
been bitten by changes appearing in code suddenly because I've tuned
out for a few weeks. There is always the option of sticking to an
earlier revision, but that doesn't help for long.
I also agree
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Yes please.
Maybe put up a poll, prominently, on the djangoproject.com homepage?
Maybe make a timeline? Drop 2.3-support by date x, drop
On Nov 26, 11:43 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks --
>
> > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> I'm going to be the stick in the mud and say
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 09:43 +0900, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks --
> >
> > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> I'm going to be the stick in the mud and say -0.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the GIS stuff is bound to 2.4+, but other than this, is there
> any particularly compelling reason to drop 2.3 support other than the
> annoyance factor for 1.1? I'm just not convinced that the first minor
>
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
I'm going to be the stick in the mud and say -0.
I don't have any particular love of or need for Python 2.3, but it has
taken
+1 For me, too.
If people want to use the cutting-edge Django release then they can at
least update Python to 2.4 (which is now 4 years old anyway).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django
+1 for me too
2.4 is still quite conservative :)
The actual Django stable version is good enought to let people
developing in until the decide/can move to a new version
--
Antoni Aloy López
Blog: http://trespams.com
Site: http://apsl.net
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
+1. Eliminates a ton of compatibility code, e.g., no more carrying
around a three thousand line Decimal implementation.
-Justin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
> Discuss.
+0.5 (not withstanding any panic'ed folks saying "I need 2.3!",
consider it a +1)
I think Debian Stable has moved to 2.4. All the servers that I
touch currently with 2.3 on them now also have 2.4 on them.
Yay,
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
+1, every single reason that has been stated convinces me of dropping
support for 2.3.
Cheers,
Jannis
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
One way to collect feedback would be to make one small change to the
code that would require 2.4, and ship 1.1 that way. Then we'd hear from
people who really couldn't run 1.1, but we haven't made too large a
change yet, so if we wanted to re-enable them we could. I realize this
means
Big +1 from me.
Finally real decorators, generators and not to forget sets as built-in type :D
-- Horst
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Brian Rosner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks --
>>
>> I'd like
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
+1. This needs to happen. Python 2.3 is getting pretty old and I would
imagine that most people have at least 2.4 available to
Sounds double plus good(+1) from me. That being said, it's been said
before that Djagno-dev, even if 20 people are vocally in favor of
something, is a tiny fraction of all the people using Django, is there
perhaps a better/more objective way of collecting feedback(the
obviously, perhaps only,
Ludvig Ericson wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
... and generator expressions, too!
+1
I was hesitant on this when I heard rumblings of it around 1.0, but my
workplace is finally getting off RHEL 4, which had Py 2.3, so I no
longer have an issue with dropping 2.3 support. RHEL 5 is at 2.4. Are
other places are still stuck with RHEL 4?
Even before, the install notes for
On Nov 25, 2008, at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
- Ludvig.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
Hi folks --
I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to
33 matches
Mail list logo
