Here's a PR to document Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0:
https://github.com/django/django/pull/8884
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:54:38 PM UTC-4, Rotund wrote:
>
> Looking at the list, I think the only gain that required 3.5+ was typing.
> The performance was due to which version was insta
Looking at the list, I think the only gain that required 3.5+ was typing.
The performance was due to which version was installed and not a real
feature. That stated, should the installer add typing from pypi as a
requirement (assuming someone adds typing info).
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 3:01 AM Aymeric
Hello,
I took a look at this thread again and I still reach the same conclusion as
Claude.
Best regards,
--
Aymeric.
> On 9 Aug 2017, at 09:02, Claude Paroz wrote:
>
> Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :
> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If
Le mardi 8 août 2017 01:45:55 UTC+2, Tim Graham a écrit :
> Has anyone changed their thinking in the last few months? If not, I guess
> we'll keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0 and drop it for 2.1.
>
I am not strongly opposed to dropping 3.4 support, but I still think we
should keep it for
One platform that only supports up to Python 3.4 ElasticBeanstalk with
Amazon Linux. A few months ago they said they were going to release a new
AMI, but that hasn't happened yet.
I'm personally happy seeing support for 3.4 dropped and possibly just
waiting a few months to upgrade to Django 2.0
One of the biggest gains would be allowing third party packages to begin to
add type hints, if we support 3.4 this won't happen for a while at least.
Other gains, for Django and third party packages include:
- code improvements using unpacking generalizations
- speed improvements with OrderedDict
Is there any list of things we gain from dropping / adding any particular
version?
The older discussion mentions a tracking ticket, but it is empty.
--
C
On 8 August 2017 9:45:54 AM AEST, Tim Graham wrote:
>With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha
>(targeted
>for Septe
Hi Tim,
I've just looked through the list of systems in use here:
* Debian stable: Python 3.5.3
* Ubuntu 16.04 (yes, LTS): 3.5.2
* CentOS 6/7 (and therefore also RHEL): 3.3-3.5 via SCL, 3.3-3.6 via IUS
So all in all dropping 3.4 would be doable. I'd still strongly object to
dropping 3.5.
Ch
With a little more than a month to go until the Django 2.0 alpha (targeted
for September 18), I'd like to make a final decision about whether or not
to keep Python 3.4 support for Django 2.0. Jenkins is currently running the
tests on pull requests with Python 3.4 and 3.6. I've seen a few times w
Ok, I created a ticket to track cleanups and new Python features we can use
when Python 3.4 support is removed:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/27857
We can evaluate that a bit later in the Django 2.0 release cycle and decide
whether or not to keep Python 3.4 support for 1.11.
On Wednesd
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
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 r
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 required to fix any test failures on Python 3.4 and we'll make a
decisio
+1 on type hinting. PyCharm always gives me 20+ options when I want to jump
to the definition of modelInstance.save() method (or any other method with
a common name like save), which makes me really miss static type
languages... As the framework for perfectionists with deadlines, I think
type h
Hi Josh,
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 11:38:52 AM UTC+1, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way
> by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change is
> dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0
Hi,
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:43:46 AM UTC+1, roboslone wrote:
>
> As Django user, I have to say type hinting would help a lot to understand
> how things work in Django without looking at docs. It could save a lot of
> time for beginners, too.
>
I've been working with "type hinting" in C
Hi Josh,
How about keeping 3.5 support in 2.0.0? say the users of ubuntu 16.04 using
systems python3.5 and update to 2.0 or started a new project with dj2.0.0
in ubuntu 16.04.
About pyenv, it take care of installing and using different versions of
python in a system without hampering the syste
Apparently I'm dumb and didn't read enough. pyenv *does* take care of
installation too. I'm not familiar enough with it (obviously..) to know
whether or not we should be encouraging its use.
On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:33:44 UTC+11, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I don't think pyenv is really relevant
I don't think pyenv is really relevant to this discussion and not something
we really need to promote. pyenv deals with making a particular installed
python *available*, it doesn't handle the installation of that python.
On Sunday, 8 January 2017 22:30:44 UTC+11, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>
> Hi Jos
Hi Josh,
I do agree and support your idea's. How about pointing/recommend pyenv for
deployment in the doc?
Thanks,
Asif
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 4:38:52 PM UTC+6, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way
> by supporting python 3.4
I guess I don't really see how we'd be helping users in any meaningful way
by supporting python 3.4 with Django 2.0. Django 2.0's defining change is
dropping Python 2. We have no idea what else will land in 2.0.
If we're trying to consider Enterprise users on "older" Distros:
- 1.11 will be LTS
> I do not think this matters, first off there is no commitment from our side
> on type hinting or anything. We do not have any DEP or something related and
> didn't even discuss if we actually want type hinting. Personally I am kinda
> against it anyways, since it clutters the code for not much
Daniele, here's my try at being more concrete than "It seems reasonable"
and "decent ledge of overlap". Let me know if you meant something different!
"Django 2.0 will be the last version of Django to support Python 3.4. This
allows those running older operating systems with Python 3.4 (such as
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 4:03:43 AM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support
> Python 3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new
> in 3.5?
>
I do not think this matters, first off there is no commitment from
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of
>"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do
>understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what
>we want, how long we w
Not sure on how we'd put that into text, but something along the lines of
"we will support 3.4+ as long as feasible for us to do so" -- though I do
understand that this is like the same as saying: "We'll just support what
we want, how long we want" :D
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 2:33:24 PM UT
Type hinting can be done in python 3.x by depending on the typing module
(or inlining it). Type hinting for instance/class attributes will have a
much nicer syntax in python 3.6 only (PEP 526)
Best,
D.
On 7 January 2017 at 03:03, Tim Graham wrote:
> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I g
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:03 PM Tim Graham wrote:
> I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support
> Python 3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new
>
> The typing module also exists standalone on PyPI and thus is pip
> installable for Python 3 < 3.
I don't know if matters to anyone, but I guess as long as we support Python
3.4 we can't do the type hinting project (PEP 484) since that's new in 3.5?
On Friday, January 6, 2017 at 12:08:07 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Tom, I'm not following how Python 3.4 support in Django 2.0 will benefit
Tom, I'm not following how Python 3.4 support in Django 2.0 will benefit
you if you want to stick to LTS versions of Django? I think either you or I
have a misunderstanding somewhere. I'll try to recap:
Django 1.11 is the next LTS. It's supported until April 2020 and supports
Python 3.4. The ne
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be
> released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this
> should also be taken as consideration while deciding.
I know supporting endless versions
So you all want to do a one time exception to our guidance of of "Typically
we will support a Python version up to and including the first Django LTS
release whose security support ends after security support for that version
of Python ends." and support Python 3.4 for how long? Or revise the
g
Hello,
I agreed with Florian and Daniele. Python 3.4 will be supported until March
2019, giving it over 1 year of overlap with Django 2.0, including the entire
mainstream support period.
I don’t expect supporting Python 3.4 to be a burden or dropping it to allow
large gains. The language-level
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>In the end (in my experience), people are using Django everywhere and part
>of the usage also comes from the fact that it's not that hard to deploy for
>sysadmins since python is available anywhere; compiling a new Python +
>infrastructure around
"EDIT://" Oh, and while it is true that it is a bit more work for us to
support multiple python versions, I've never seen it that bad. Installing
more CI runners which have the matching python versions does not hurt that
much either. Actually it might nowadays even be easier on CentOS than on
U
After thinking a bit more: Are there any concrete reasons to drop 3.4/3.5
aside from new features? Sure, security is an issue, but looking at the
issues with cookie parsing we would have been better off by immediately
fixing ourself instead of waiting for python (same goes for XML). So in the
e
Hi Asif,
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:10:40 PM UTC+1, Asif Saifuddin wrote:
>
> django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be
> released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this
> should also be taken as consideration while deciding.
>
What come
Hi,
django 2.0 will be released in december 2017 and ubuntu 18.04 will be
released in april 2018 which will default atleast 3.6, so I think this
should also be taken as consideration while deciding.
Thanks
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 1:00:00 AM UTC+6, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> August 2016: P
August 2016: PyPy gets funding from Mozilla for Python 3.5 support
"Within the next year, we plan to use the money to pay four core PyPy
developers half-time to work on the missing features and on some of the big
performance and cpyext issues. This should speed up the progress of
catching up wit
Mhm, just thought about the fact that this means we are also dropping
support for PyPy and Jython -- not sure about the Jyton usage, but loosing
PyPy sounds sad, how far along are there python 3 efforts? It looks like it
is/was close to 3.3 according to
https://morepypy.blogspot.co.at/2016/08/p
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Claude Paroz wrote:
> Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?
>
No idea. It was held in moderation as "possible spam" for reason only
Google Groups knows. When GG does this, it does not send moderators a note
about it until 3 or 4 days later. This one
There may be a bug in Google Groups -- I've seen my own messages deleted
like that.
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 2:41:59 PM UTC-5, Claude Paroz wrote:
>
> Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?
>
> Claude
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Any idea why my message in this thread was deleted?
Claude
--
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-develop
> On 28 Dec 2016, at 15:53, Claude Paroz wrote:
>
> Dropping Python 2 will already be a strong progress and might allow nice
> improvements for Django.
+1
The Python 3 transition will materialize brutally for many developers when they
can’t upgrade Django anymore without upgrading Python as w
I would like to voice my support for Florian's arguments. It's not only
RedHat, Debian is also concerned. The current Jessie stable version which
will be supported probably until mid-2018 is Python 3.4, and the upcoming
stable version will most probably be Python 3.5. So a strong -1 for
droppin
I'm okay with keeping Python 3.5 support around. I agree it would be a bit
impractical to release Django 2.0 in December without being able to run it
on the most recent Ubuntu LTS.
If we dropped Python 3.5 support after Django 2.1 that would give Django
(2.1) support until December 2019 (or Apr
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:52 PM Tim Graham wrote:
> Collin raised a fair point in #django-dev that Ubuntu 16.04 bundles Python
> 3.5. I guess 16.10 will include Python 3.6 -- that will be released before
> Django 2.0 in December 2017.
>
> Presumably any Python's we don't drop for 2.0 we will have
Yes, Django 1.11 is the last version to support Python 2.7. This is
documented in the 1.11 release notes, in
https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions, and elsewhere.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 4:37:06 PM UTC-5, MMeent wrote:
>
> I won't mind dropping support for Python v
I won't mind dropping support for Python versions that are not supported up
to the end of the support period of the next LTS (2.2 in this case). If you
want to use long-term stability and/or support for current Python versions,
you should use the current django LTS version, which will be 1.11. I am
Collin raised a fair point in #django-dev that Ubuntu 16.04 bundles Python
3.5. I guess 16.10 will include Python 3.6 -- that will be released before
Django 2.0 in December 2017.
Presumably any Python's we don't drop for 2.0 we will have to support until
the next LTS (which means 2 more years w
Imo we should not drop Python versions overeagerly. After all I do not
wanna compile our own python for djangoproject.com :D Given that Redhat is
on Python 3.4 for the foreseeable future, I'd actually even like to see 3.4
still supported in Django 2.0 unless there is a good reason to drop it.
F
When I drafted the 1.11 release notes in May, I wrote, "The next major
release, Django 2.0, will only support Python 3.5+."
Our Python version support policy is "Typically, we will support a Python
version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security
support ends after securi
52 matches
Mail list logo