Me too.
+ 1
--
Matt Harasymczuk
http://www.matt.harasymczuk.pl
--
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/-/4b6tOPU9xjMJ.
To post to this grou
On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 08:36 -0800, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> On Dec 23, 3:23 pm, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> >
> > I would argue that Jaunty being a non-LTS release shouldn't be considered
> > as a target platform we want to support. OTOH the LTS release Ubuntu Lucid
> > (10.04) ships Python 2.6.5, so we'
FWIW, the previous version of Mac OS X (10.6) shipped with 2.6.1.
On Dec 23, 5:49 am, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:56 pm, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>
> > I think both of these proposals are great -- start merging the Python
> > 3 work right after we release 1.4, anddropsupport for Python2.5in
On Dec 23, 3:23 pm, Jannis Leidel wrote:
>
> I would argue that Jaunty being a non-LTS release shouldn't be considered as
> a target platform we want to support. OTOH the LTS release Ubuntu Lucid
> (10.04) ships Python 2.6.5, so we're good.
Sure, Jaunty was just an example. I'm not sure what v
On 23.12.2011, at 11:49, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 4:56 pm, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>
>> I think both of these proposals are great -- start merging the Python
>> 3 work right after we release 1.4, anddropsupport for Python2.5in
>> trunk after 1.4 is released.
>
> Before we do this, ano
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 00:46 -0600, Joseph Tennies wrote:
> While I agree it should be dropped, I was discussing this with the
> Twisted guys. They pointed out that it will actually receive security
> updates through 2013. This is thanks to Ubuntu 8.10 LTS. I'm sure
> Canonical could tap into someon
On Dec 10, 4:56 pm, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> I think both of these proposals are great -- start merging the Python
> 3 work right after we release 1.4, anddropsupport for Python2.5in
> trunk after 1.4 is released.
Before we do this, another decision is required - which release of 2.6
is the min
While I agree it should be dropped, I was discussing this with the Twisted guys. They pointed out that it will actually receive security updates through 2013. This is thanks to Ubuntu 8.10 LTS. I'm sure Canonical could tap into someone like Barry to fix it if serious enough.-- Sent from my HP Touch
> 2.5 is EOL and no longer receiving security patches even, it is
> *irresponsible* of us to support it (I claim). ANyways +1
This. +1 from me. We do everything else in our power to encourage
secure behavior from our users, this is yet another appropriate step.
-Paul
--
You received this messa
+1
Regards,
Kok HOOR
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 11, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> 2.5 is EOL and no longer receiving security patches even, it is
>> *irresponsible* of us to support it (I claim). ANyways +1
>
> This is a
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> 2.5 is EOL and no longer receiving security patches even, it is
> *irresponsible* of us to support it (I claim). ANyways +1
This is a very good reason I hadn't though of.
Anyway, looks like this is a plan! Excellent.
Adrian
--
You receive
Wasn't the reason why Django 1.4 should still support Python 2.5 because of
RHEL 5? If so, RHEL 5 never had official Python 2.5 support but only
supported Python 2.4. RHEL 6 does not support 2.5 either, its Python
version is 2.6. What is the reason that Django 1.4 needs to support Python
2.5?
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Paul Egges wrote:
> +1
>
> I thought there was an implicit understanding that only 3 versions of
> Python would be supported at any given time. If so it makes sense to drop
> support for 2.4 when we add 3.x.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jannis Leidel
+1
I thought there was an implicit understanding that only 3 versions of
Python would be supported at any given time. If so it makes sense to drop
support for 2.4 when we add 3.x.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> > I propose that we attempt to merge the py3k work after
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>> I think both of these proposals are great -- start merging the Python
>> 3 work right after we release 1.4, and drop support for Python 2.5 in
>> trunk after 1.4 is released.
>
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> I think both of these proposals are great -- start merging the Python
> 3 work right after we release 1.4, and drop support for Python 2.5 in
> trunk after 1.4 is released.
I totally agree.
Jacob
--
You received this message because yo
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> So, I propose that we attempt to merge the py3k work after the release
> of 1.4, rather than let it go stale and lose the good work done so far,
> and also drop support for Python 2.5 for Django 1.5.
I think both of these proposals are great --
> I propose that we attempt to merge the py3k work after the release
> of 1.4, rather than let it go stale and lose the good work done so far,
> and also drop support for Python 2.5 for Django 1.5.
+1
I think dropping Python 2.5 in the process of porting Django to Python 3.X are
reasonable goals
18 matches
Mail list logo
