Django 1.4 alpha on December 22nd

[Aymeric Augustin]

Hey folks,

We're planning to release the alpha for 1.4 on December 22nd.

If you're working on non-trivial new features for 1.4, please try to make them ready for checkin by next weekend.

Before you ask -- we're aiming for a beta early in February and final in March.

Best regards,

--
Aymeric Augustin.

[Tomek Paczkowski]

This is good news. Thanks.

[Kiril Vladimirov]

While I'm reading all topics, listed below I'm thinking... is it too early to announce *experimental* Python 3.2 support in Django 1.4?

• Python 3 port - all tests now pass on 2.5.4, 2.6.2, 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase 
• Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase 
• Python 3 port - all PostgreSQL tests now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase 
• Python 3 port - all Oracle tests (bar one) now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase 

May be something like a light bulb that should go over the head of all django users(as in web developers using django) and plugin maintainers about python 3 support could facilitate a future 2 to 3 migration.

What do you think?

[Joseph Tennies]

Perhaps something in the release notes pointing to the branch would be good. Unfortunately there's probably at least a month of code reviews. Not to mention it has been discussed that the port only needs to support 2.6 as support is being dropped, so it'll get much simpler.

That being said, Django still needs the full py3 support module in case someone else's module straddles Django versions.

-- Sent from my Palm Pixi

---

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/nQT-3UYcO8IJ.
To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.

[Ian Kelly]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Kiril Vladimirov <v.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I'm reading all topics, listed below I'm thinking... is it too early
> to announce *experimental* Python 3.2 support in Django 1.4?

Already been discussed:

http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/32c3526c4efe278d?hl=en

The problem with merging it and labeling the support as "experimental"
is that the changes are of such a fundamental nature that they could
easily break things in 2.x, not just in Python 3.

Cheers,
Ian

[Vinay Sajip]

On Dec 16, 12:45 am, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem with merging it and labeling the support as "experimental"
> is that the changes are of such a fundamental nature that they could
> easily break things in 2.x, not just in Python 3.

Agreed, it's too risky to merge in 1.4 this late in the day. As well
as passing the full suite, it would need to be tested in more real-
world scenarios (including with third-party apps) to be sure there
were no regressions in 2.x.

On the bright side, it does allow time for simplifying to allow
"except X as e:", and removal of u() and b() from the port, as well as
more extensive testing on both 2.x and 3.x.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

[Ian Clelland]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Vinay Sajip <vinay...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On Dec 16, 12:45 am, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem with merging it and labeling the support as "experimental"
> is that the changes are of such a fundamental nature that they could
> easily break things in 2.x, not just in Python 3.

Agreed, it's too risky to merge in 1.4 this late in the day. As well
as passing the full suite, it would need to be tested in more real-
world scenarios (including with third-party apps) to be sure there
were no regressions in 2.x.

Seconded; although, like Joseph above, I have also thought that it would be helpful for module writers to have access to django.utils.py3, to be able to start writing code that will work on both Django 1.4 and 1.5+.

I don't know if it's completely warranted; it would mean putting a piece of code into core that is untested, and isn't used by any part of core, but it would be handy to have.

For my pymysql backend, I've just included my own minimal version of the file, just declaring the definitions that are needed for that piece, but I'n not sure how I'll ever be able to remove that, and still keep support for Django 1.4. It's looking right now like I'll have to release a Django 1.5 version of the backend in order to use django.utils.py3, or else just maintain my copy independently forever.

On the bright side, it does allow time for simplifying to allow
"except X as e:", and removal of u() and b() from the port, as well as
more extensive testing on both 2.x and 3.x.

Regards,

Vinay Sajip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.

To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.

--
Regards,
Ian Clelland
<clel...@gmail.com>

[Andre Terra]

Thirded.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Ian Clelland <clel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know if it's completely warranted; it would mean putting a piece of code into core that is untested, and isn't used by any part of core, but it would be handy to have.

As I understand it, "untested and isn't used by any part of core" suggests we shouldn't include it in 1.4 at all. Developers that are willing and wanting to test py3 compatibility can pull from the appropriate branch and start working on updating their own code. FWIW, as soon as the issues mentioned by Vinay in this thread get corrected, we can commit the py3 changes to trunk and work from there. Not modifying 1.4 does *not* mean that trunk will not see any python 3 code soon, i.e. we don't have to wait until 1.5 beta. Released versions should be stable and tested, and 1.4 can only be called stable if we don't include py3 support.




Cheers,
AT

[Aymeric Augustin]

On 16 déc. 2011, at 20:55, Ian Clelland wrote:

Seconded; although, like Joseph above, I have also thought that it would be helpful for module writers to have access to django.utils.py3, to be able to start writing code that will work on both Django 1.4 and 1.5+.

I don't know if it's completely warranted; it would mean putting a piece of code into core that is untested, and isn't used by any part of core, but it would be handy to have.

Hi Ian,

Including this module would freeze its APIs.

I'd prefer to see more reviews and attempts to port popular third-party apps first.