Configured isort to use its "django" profile.

[adamchainz]

isort 5 added profiles to represent common configurations, including one copying Django’s config ( https://pycqa.github.io/isort/docs/configuration/profiles.html ), so we no longer need to specify the options directly.

[felixxm]

@adamchainz Thanks for this patch 👍 However I don't think that we should "import" our configuration from the 3rd-party package. It would create a circular logic dependency and it's confusing. isort's "django" profile is rather for others not for Django itself 🤷 . Let's see what other think.

[ngnpope]

Also, when we adopt black won't we want to use isort's black profile over its django profile? That'll be amusing… 😄

[apollo13]

I have no strong feelings, the "django" profile is probably only relevant till we can drop in "black" (sooooon ;)). I somewhat agree with Mariusz that it at least feels weird to pull our configuration from someone else (but all in all no strong feelings). What if we were to change the config in the future? Then we'd have to ask isort to release a new release for us :D

[adamchainz]

Also, when we adopt black won't we want to use isort's black profile over its django profile? That'll be amusing… 😄

Yes, absolutely.

What if we were to change the config in the future? Then we'd have to ask isort to release a new release for us :D

We can override it on a per-rule basis. But with so many years without change, plus changing to the Black profile on the horizon, it seems very unlikely to change.

[felixxm]

But with so many years without change ...

I still don't see any benefits, grumbling... 👴 😉 Sure we can do this, but why? just because we can 🤔 that's not a rationale (my 2️⃣ ¢.)

[apollo13]

You are getting a grumpy old man 🤗🤗 but I do agree with you that the gains are negligible. I think both approaches are fine, and I am perfectly fine with letting the fellows decide. This will be the last (I hope, unless you manage to trigger me 😜) I will write here -- as well intentioned as the proposed change and discussion are, I do not think there is much to win here aside of a waste of time (please note that I am not suggesting that anyone here is trying to waste anyones time, we are all trying to make Django better). Those are my two €, let's use it for a beer next time we meet.

…

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, at 19:55, Mariusz Felisiak wrote: > But with so many years without change ... > I still don't see any benefits, *grumbling...* 👴 😉 Sure we can do this, but why? just because we can 🤔 that's not a rationale (my 2️⃣ ¢.) — You are receiving this because your review was requested. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#14594 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAT5C52WHBGOXPSMBRXRA3TWHWYDANCNFSM472NEEPA>.

[adamchainz]

I'm happy whether you close or merge. One small improvement is that the shorter config makes it easier for others looking to make packages to adopt the same style. Also, moving the config to pyproject.toml is good long term as the ecosystem moves to configuring all tools through that file.

[felixxm]

@adamchainz Thanks again 🤗

Closing due to lack of consensus.