Hi all.
Thank you for all the discussion. tl;dr "It's Hard™" :)
But we need to decide, so that we can merge Mariusz' PR and move on.
I think we *don't* have a perfect new policy (yet). So let's bump that.
There's no urgency to decide.
*Possibly* we could support Python 3.7 just for Django 4.0
Hi Carlton,
Thanks for the directions. I have posted my question on the issue tracker.
Thanks,
Surya
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 1:05 PM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> Hi Surya. Welcome
>
> Do comment on the ticket. Thibauld and Tom should be able to give you more
> specific advice.
> I'm not sure if Thib
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 03:42, Carlton Gibson wrote:
>
> Possibly we could support Python 3.7 just for Django 4.0, as an exception,
> leveraging the "typically" in the existing policy, and clearly stating what
> we were doing.
>
> Can I ask for (limited) thoughts just on that smaller proposal?
Hey Ryan,
That is a good question. Do we take the X in an X.Y series in the SemVer
way.
I’ve always thought not — the difference between 2.2 and 3.0 or 3.2 and 4.0
isn’t really a Major version change™ — we just roll on the same regardless
of the number (with slight wiggles for the deprecation poli
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 11:29 AM, Carlton Gibson wrote:
>
> That is a good question. Do we take the X in an X.Y series in the SemVer way.
> I’ve always thought not
When we switched the version scheme ahead of 2.0, we wanted it to roughly match
SemVer. We’ve strategically weakened it in some pl
