Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

We're on schedule for 1.9 final tomorrow. There are 3 release blockers in Trac, however, 1 blocker affects only master and the other two also affect 1.8 and thus aren't blockers for 1.9. On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:17:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote: > > Sorry for the lack of updates, but

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

Sorry for the lack of updates, but no news is good news. We're on track for a release candidate on Monday. On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 7:41:55 PM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote: > > We're on schedule for Monday's beta release. Most of the backported fixes > have been issues affecting 1.8 too. > >

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

We're on schedule for Monday's beta release. Most of the backported fixes have been issues affecting 1.8 too. On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:31:13 AM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote: > > We've resolved a couple of release blockers on the stable/1.9.x branch > since the alpha, but overall bug

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

We've resolved a couple of release blockers on the stable/1.9.x branch since the alpha, but overall bug reports have been quiet. Hopefully that's a good sign! The beta release is scheduled for 2 weeks + 2 days from now, Monday October 19. On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 3:17:28 PM UTC-4,

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

All known issues are resolved. I plan to create the branch and make the release in about 4 hours if nothing else pops up. On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:46:40 AM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote: > > I'm okay with deferring it. I'll see if we can release the alpha later > today then. I found one

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

I'm okay with deferring it. I'll see if we can release the alpha later today then. I found one regression in the unreviewed ticket queue this morning and submitted a pull request. I'm also investigating a possible regression causing the djangoproject.com tests to fail. On Wednesday, September

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

I did not fully follow the discussion, but by the amount of email notifications I got on that PR if feels to me that deferring it to 1.10 would be the better option, also considering what Tom said about this being part of a core component and it has to be done right. /Markus On Wednesday,

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

To back that up I'll make a formal commitment to helping review & ensure completion of the PR if it *does* get deferred to 1.10. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

Given that it addresses such a core component I'd probably rather see it deferred to 1.10. I'd hope that doesn't affect the motivation of the author (it's a fiddly bit of work to get right and its good to see it being addressed) but from my point of view it'd be better to see it really

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 2:25:50 AM UTC+2, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > For me, it depends on how close Florian et al think the patch is. If > it's "close, but a few things need to be tweaked", then option 2 or 3 > sounds good to me. A couple of days won't make much difference in

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Tim Graham wrote: > The second patch has been committed, and the first one is still under > review. > > Florian says "with all that forth and back [on the pull request] I am not > sure if it is not better to defer it to 1.10, i.e. I

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

The second patch has been committed, and the first one is still under review. Florian says "with all that forth and back [on the pull request] I am not sure if it is not better to defer it to 1.10, i.e. I completely missed the base64 stuff for instance. One option would be to ship it with the

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

Let's consider master feature frozen for now. There are two more patches I'd like to merge before we cut the 1.9 branch. #21231 -- Enforced a max size for POST values read into memory https://github.com/django/django/pull/3852 Status: Needs final code reviews and probably some doc enhancements

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

Sorry everyone :( On 18 September 2015 at 15:01, Tim Graham wrote: > The major features are officially deferred. Let's try for the feature > freeze by end of day on Monday and the alpha release on Tuesday. > > There aren't any critical blockers at this time. Jani hasn't

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

The major features are officially deferred. Let's try for the feature freeze by end of day on Monday and the alpha release on Tuesday. There aren't any critical blockers at this time. Jani hasn't completed the Oracle GIS work, but this isn't a must-have for alpha. On Saturday, September 12,

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

With 1 week to go until alpha: I haven't heard anything from Marc or Preston on the major features from the last mail. Jani continues to give updates in #django-dev about his progress on getting the Oracle GIS backend working. Things seem to be on track for finishing up by alpha. On Friday,

Re: status of 1.9 release blockers

Status with 2 weeks and a weekend to go until alpha (Monday, September 21). Planned major features for 1.9: PostgreSQL Full Text Search (Marc Tamlyn) I haven't seen any recent activity on the pull request, nor have I heard anything from Marc about it. https://github.com/django/django/pull/4726

status of 1.9 release blockers

Time to kickoff the progress tracker for the next major release! Here's the status with 4 weeks to go until alpha (September 21). Release blockers: - Add Oracle support for new-style GIS functions https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24688 Owner: Jani Tiainen Status: In progress (test suite