Removing Python 2.x support from Django for version 2.0

Post by urda » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #192

yuvadam wrote: post #6

This call has been made a while back, and it makes perfect sense. Python 2 is slowly being EOL'd and if you're starting a brand new Django project there's no reason on earth you should choose Python 2 anymore. Sure legacy projects still need support and for that they get the 1.11 LTS, but otherwise it's really time to move on.

>Python 2 is slowly being EOL'd and if you're starting a brand new Django project there's no reason on earth you should choose Python 2 anymore. Except that there are still some critical packages that aren't on Python 3 yet. Not to mention a lot of functionality breaks even if the libraries do exist, which means you have to code things up quite differently sometimes.

Post by cdelsolar » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #342

gtaylor wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasons to upgrade are often dependent upon your usage case. To me, the Unicode improvements are reason enough on their own before you even get into the other great stuff (async work, type hinting, stdlib cleanup, pyc rework, etc). asyncio is going to be a slow build, as the ecosystem starts unifying around it. But as that happens, we'll be much better off for it.

Ruby offered an immediate 25% performance increase. That's a lot less niche than Unicode.

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

billoday wrote: post #327

rbanffy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk as if Python 3 were a dialect of Lisp. It's still Python, looks like Python and feels like Python. In fact, I think most of my Python 3 code runs on Python 2.

You talk as if the switch doesn't look like a bunch of arbitrary decisions made on the appearance of purity. If more of an attempt had been made a maintaining compatibility, there wouldn't be nearly as much fight. Python 3 becomes a bit uncanny valley for me when I try to code in it and I tend to use a different language as there less of an internal code switch, especially as I still have to maintain large numbers of…

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 10:54 PM UTC

compuguy wrote: post #311

throwawayish wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah no. I know that there are domains that are mostly on Python 2, and of course you'll always have legacy / unmaintained things lying around. But "zeee majoritie is Python 2.7!!1111" does not become true by some people chanting it over and over again. The simple fact that frameworks and libraries are moving away from Python 2 already proves that the majority does, in fact, not use Python 2. Otherwise maintainers wo…

There are some major products like Ansible, that are still only compatible with Python 2.7.

Post by Animux » Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 11:03 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #343

Animux wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The upgrade process of south was pretty shitty. The documentation was telling something like: Ensure you applied all previous migrations and then start from scratch. Thats not an upgrade path. It may work for standalone web applications, but I have a python project (packaged as deb/rpm package and using the packaged django version of different distributions) that should work with multiple django versions and the user…

If you were supporting applications which needed to work with or without South at the time of the transition, the best thing to do was probably ship two separate sets of migrations (one set written for South, one written for Django's built-in migration framework).