On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> wrote: > Hi Christopher, > > On 02/15/2014 09:43 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: >> What I'm proposing now is more conservative proposal. Firstly, Django will >> support Jinja2 out-of-the-box, but DTL will remain the "blessed" option. >> Secondly, Django will allow to mix DTL and Jinja2 templates (so you can >> include/inherit DTL template from Jinja2 one and vice versa). >> >> After doing it, I could focus on 3) decoupling DTL or/and 4) rewriting >> Django >> builtin templates in Jinja2 or/and 5) moving rendering form widgets from >> Python code to Jinja2 templates. > > This sounds reasonable to me. > >> After that all, we could start again the war DTL vs Jinja2, but please focus >> on the new proposal now. >> >> Questions are: >> >> 1) What do you think about the new proposal? Would it be useful? > > Yes, as long as Jinja2 is a hard dependency, such that we can rely on > its availability for internal Django use (form widgets). > >> 2) Jinja2 doesn't support 3.2. Will Django 1.8 support 3.2? > > Donald might be able to offer better hard numbers based on e.g. PyPI > usage, but my impression is that usage of 3.2 is very low, and dropping > it for 1.8 would not be a major problem.
These numbers are about a month old, but https://gist.github.com/dstufft/8455306 > >> 3) Supporting Jinja2 out-of-the-box means introducing dependencies. Are we >> ready for this? > > I think so, yes. > > Carl > ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
