As Tim pointed out, it's unlikely that the change would have made Alpha, let alone Beta. Adding a new feature now breaks the 'philosophical' release rules but it also allows a feature through without the wider community testing in alpha and beta (now that it's cut). As far as I can tell, increasing the length of the field only really affects existing deployments without a custom user model. New deployments are free to implement custom user models if they require different constraints.
So the set of users with existing deployments without a custom user model would probably make up at least 80%, but I'd bet an extremely large portion of those users don't absolutely have to have an increased username field. They've gone this long without it. Breaking the release rules to push a change that'll affect such a large segment of the community isn't going to fly. Cheers On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:56:26 UTC+11, Chris Foresman wrote: > > Given that 1.8 is an LTS, and increasing the default username length > addresses the 80% use-case for custom user models, isn't it worth adding > this change now (even if it philosophically violates the alpha/beta split)? > > > > On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-6, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> Well, this change wouldn't have been made after alpha (feature-freeze) >> either. As there haven't been any outright rejections of the idea, I think >> the next step is for someone to write a patch and carefully consider and >> document and backwards compatibility concerns. >> >> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 11:19:46 AM UTC-5, Daniel Hawkins >> wrote: >>> >>> Beta 1 marks the end of any changes that aren't considered release >>>> blocking bugs. A bug is a "Release blocker" if it's a regression from a >>>> previous version of Django or if it's an important bug in a new feature. >>> >>> >>> ... so I guess the ship has sailed on this idea? :( >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 3:27:35 AM UTC-5, Daniel Hawkins >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes please! Since contrib.auth.models.User.email is an EmailField, >>>> that change will require everyone to run a migration, right? Then we >>>> might >>>> as well change the character limit on the username field at the same >>>> time, no? And any other defaults that might be less-than-reasonable? >>>> >>>> I was going to update the longerusername package by adding a Django >>>> 1.7 migration, but it seems I can't alter fields on the User model >>>> from within another app's migrations in Django 1.7. This was possible >>>> with >>>> South, but it appears to be impossible with Django migrations (except >>>> perhaps with raw SQL, which seems like a bad idea). So now I *have to* >>>> create a custom user model just so I can migrate to Django 1.7 (which I >>>> *have >>>> to* do in order to continue getting security releases after 1.8 is >>>> released). >>>> >>>> According to the docs, setting a custom user model after you've already >>>> run initial migrations is not supported ( >>>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/topics/auth/customizing/#substituting-a-custom-user-model). >>>> >>>> So, for anyone without a custom user model, who is already running on >>>> Django 1.7 in production, who would like to have usernames longer than 30 >>>> characters, there is no way to make that happen. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:10:02 PM UTC-5, Collin Anderson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> I was reminded by: >>>>> Allow shadowing of abstract fields >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/6zUfnElOIks/8uwXji559EsJ >>>>> and https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24288 (Custom User Models >>>>> for small tweaks). >>>>> >>>>> Could we reopen https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20846 >>>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcode.djangoproject.com%2Fticket%2F20846&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFmuXGuuIzUh9RG7XCoJFVq-z7m2g> >>>>> >>>>> and increase User.username max_length to 254? >>>>> >>>>> Personally, that's the only thing I've ever needed to change about my >>>>> User class. I just need it long enough to hold email addresses. I've seen >>>>> many other people wanting the same thing. >>>>> >>>>> In 1.8 we migrated the length of EmailField from 75 to 254, so it >>>>> should be almost™ as easy to change the username field. >>>>> >>>>> If needed, we could keep the 30-character limit on UserCreationForm >>>>> and UserChangeForm for backwards compatibility. The limit in the database >>>>> is the real killer :) Though, consistency is also nice. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Collin >>>>> >>>>> -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/50c013ee-d015-4417-ab93-22f2957dedc3%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
