DEP 4: Release Schedule #16
Conversation
|
I'm not sure what the exact scope of this DEP should be (e.g. if things like Python support and the FAQ should be included.) |
| deprecation shims for at least two releases. | ||
|
|
||
| Starting with Django 3.0, each version following an LTS will bump to the next | ||
| "dot zero" version. LTS version will thereafter always be "X.2". The |
| deprecated features when running on the older LTS. | ||
|
|
||
| Features will be deprecated over two releases, except for features deprecated | ||
| in the version after an LTS as those deprecation shims are needed to ease |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
add "which will be deprecated over three releases" - right now it's unclear what the exception actually is.
|
I think this looks pretty good! I would actually add a short "Immediate Future" section towards the end, clarifying how the transition to the new numbering scheme will occur (that is, the 1.9 - 3.0 schedule). |
|
There is already a DEP 0002 in "draft" and 0003 in "accepted" |
timgraham
changed the title
|
Carl, my thought is to communicate "Immediate Future" in the blog post and download page roadmap. I don't think it needs to be memorialized in a DEP. |
|
If the model here is the PEP process, PEPs do usually contain necessary information on the transition, too, even if that information won't be relevant years later. It's not the focus, but it's part of the PEP. I guess I don't see the benefit of leaving it out entirely; if someone is reading the DEP in the near term, how the transition will happen is very useful information. Since it's even less likely that we want to link from a DEP to a more-transient resource like a blog post or the download page, not providing the information just leaves a reader in the dark. And it seems like the information would only take a sentence or two to provide (especially with the new 1.10 - 1.11 plan). |
|
I did add "effective with Django 2.0 which will follow Django 1.11 (LTS)." |
|
Ah, missed that change! DEP LGTM; are you ready for a technical board vote on it? |
|
Yes, I think it's ready now. |
No description provided.