[PATCH v2 0/4] Remove support for Django 1.6

[Don Zickus]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 07:02:31PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> +Konstantin, the kernel.org sysadmin. The context is that patchwork has
> just removed (see subject) support for Django 1.6, but I've been told
> that RHEL/EPEL7 which you run has only that version, so updating to the
> latest patchwork would now be impossible (again)

Hi,

Just to throw another datapoint at folks.  RHEL-7 has this notion of
software collections.  It allows customers to update a collection tools to a
newer version (RH supported) in the /opt area.  Then using a script (which
sets env variables), a program can easily use python3 and postgres9.2 on
RHEL-7.

You can read about it here:

https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhscl

and talk with your RH account manager about more of the details.

You would still need to pip install Django, but at least you could get a
newer supported python and postgres on RHEL-7.  Not sure how much it helps.
Again it was just another datapoint.

Cheers,
Don


> 
> > We can't support Django 1.4: it's too long in the tooth and has been
> > unsupported for too long to even consider.
> 
> It's also ancient and awful compared to newer versions :)
> 
> > So I think we need to answer the following question:
> > 
> > * Are deployers going to install from source/pip?
> 
> I don't really know. Perhaps Konstantin can chime in.
> 
> > If not, then we're going to have (a) roll back the Django 1.6 removal
> > patches, (b) put together a roadmap for future Django version support and
> > (c) avoid using non-stdlib libraries (outside of Django) going forward. As
> > Damien pointed out, these actions come with some rather severe costs for
> > us so I'd like to be absolutely certain of this before I take any actions.
> > 
> 
> There's the obvious alternative of not caring about LTS installations
> like kernel.org and simply continue developing the software as is
> against upstream. *Eventually*, it's going to get to the users, perhaps
> not as fast as the users (like me) would like.
> 
> And I'm not suggesting at all that you should consider "LTS distro"
> support of huge importance.
> 
> I think in a way part of the problem is that your user audience is also
> developers (in a different space), so we users might be interested in
> working on tools improvements ourselves (like the regex auto-delegation 
> feature that Mauro/Laurent have), but there's less incentive to do that
> if we can't actually benefit from it in a fairly short time frame (and
> we're more likely to script our way around it instead.)
> 
> johannes
> _______________________________________________
> Patchwork mailing list
> Patchwork at lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork