[Django] #23821: Remove bundled six and replace it with a upstream dependency
Django
--------------------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: MarkusH | Owner: MarkusH
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Keywords:
Triage Stage: Unreviewed | Has patch: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
--------------------------------------+---------------------
Django historically ships with a bundled version of six in
`django.utils.six`. Now that ensurepip landed in the Python 2.x branch
(http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0477/) we can safely use
dependencies to other Python projects and should move Django's custom
methods to something like `django.utils.compat`.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Django
Reporter: MarkusH | Owner: MarkusH
Type: | Status: new
Cleanup/optimization | Version: master
Component: Utilities | Resolution:
Severity: Normal | Triage Stage:
Keywords: | Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by claudep):
* needs_better_patch: => 0
* needs_tests: => 0
* needs_docs: => 0
Comment:
It's good to see progress on that side, but let's not forget that from a
commit in the 2.x branch until it lands on user machines, time may pass.
I'm not sure stable distros do patch all these sort of commits. I wouldn't
make the move for the Django 1.8 release.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:1>
Django
Reporter: MarkusH | Owner: MarkusH
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by timgraham):
* stage: Unreviewed => Accepted
Comment:
I have been looking into whether or not we can get some of our
customization's (the assertions) merged into six. We could then probably
move the `memoryview` stuff elsewhere so we are at least not making
customizations. We should talk at the sprints tomorrow. I think we could
probably start the deprecation of `utils.six` in 1.8, but seconds opinion
welcome as I don't fully understand the issues that have historically
prevented us from being able to use dependencies.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:2>
Django
Reporter: MarkusH | Owner: MarkusH
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Comment (by aaugustin):
I don't think we should remove django.utils.six until we should drop
support for Python 2. The maintenance workload is very low.
We're OK with requiring dependencies for some features, however, I don't
think we're OK with requiring dependencies for simply starting a hello-
world django project.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:3>
Django
Reporter: MarkusH | Owner: MarkusH
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: closed
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: wontfix
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by claudep):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => wontfix
Comment:
+1 to what Aymeric said, I don't see the gain to do that move for a
library that is going to die sooner or later.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:4>
Django
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Markus Holtermann | Owner: Markus
Type: | Holtermann
Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Frank Sachsenheim):
* cc: Frank Sachsenheim (added)
* status: closed => new
* resolution: wontfix =>
* stage: Accepted => Unreviewed
Comment:
while support for Python 2 was removed, this module is still hanging
around in the code and could be removed, couldn't it?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:5>
Django
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Markus Holtermann | Owner: Markus
Type: | Holtermann
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Comment (by Aymeric Augustin):
It needs to stay until all supported versions of Django only run on Python
3.x.
Until then, we want third-party apps to be able to import
`django.utils.six` on all supported Django versions.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:6>
Django
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Markus Holtermann | Owner: Markus
Type: | Holtermann
Component: Utilities | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: duplicate
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Aymeric Augustin):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => duplicate
Comment:
... which is tracked in #27753.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:7>
Django
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Markus Holtermann | Owner: Markus
Type: | Holtermann
Cleanup/optimization | Status: closed
Severity: Normal | Resolution: duplicate
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Frank Sachsenheim):
* cc: Frank Sachsenheim (removed)
Comment:
oh sorry, i was looking for 'six' in the summary field, so that didn't
turn up.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23821#comment:8>