FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-22-2010, 12:03 PM
Stephen Gallagher
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not
have been done without discussion on this list. Django 1.2 breaks API
with Django 1.1, resulting in breaking at least two Django-based
packages in Fedora: Transifex and ReviewBoard.

ReviewBoard has an available upstream version that will work with either
(and I will now have to package early), but Transifex has no plans to
support Django 1.2 in the immediate future (since 1.1 will remain
supported upstream for some time).

Furthermore, these issues were already discussed in the bodhi update for
the EPEL5 version of this package, and it was decided that the upgrade
was not sensible there either. After that discussion, it seems to me
that it would have been sensible to raise a discussion about pushing
this update into a stable Fedora. (Rawhide was fine, as it would have
given Transifex several months to add compatibility).

--
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 01:57 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:03:08 -0400, Stephen wrote:

> Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not
> have been done without discussion on this list.

Just to understand what has happened here:
In three weeks, nobody has added any comment to the update in bodhi.
Has it gone unnoticed by all the people who depend on Django?

> Django 1.2 breaks API
> with Django 1.1, resulting in breaking at least two Django-based
> packages in Fedora: Transifex and ReviewBoard.
>
> ReviewBoard has an available upstream version that will work with either
> (and I will now have to package early), but Transifex has no plans to
> support Django 1.2 in the immediate future (since 1.1 will remain
> supported upstream for some time).
>
> Furthermore, these issues were already discussed in the bodhi update for
> the EPEL5 version of this package, and it was decided that the upgrade
> was not sensible there either.

When? Where? Am I right in assuming that the bodhi update has been
_deleted_ by the packager?

> After that discussion, it seems to me
> that it would have been sensible to raise a discussion about pushing
> this update into a stable Fedora. (Rawhide was fine, as it would have
> given Transifex several months to add compatibility).
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Stephen Gallagher
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On 06/22/2010 09:57 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:03:08 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Django 1.2.1 was recently pushed to stable in Fedora 13. This should not
>> have been done without discussion on this list.
>
> Just to understand what has happened here:
> In three weeks, nobody has added any comment to the update in bodhi.
> Has it gone unnoticed by all the people who depend on Django?

No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing.
It only addressed one bug
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=584866 - a packaging bug),
so it wouldn't have been advertised that way either.

>
>> Django 1.2 breaks API
>> with Django 1.1, resulting in breaking at least two Django-based
>> packages in Fedora: Transifex and ReviewBoard.
>>
>> ReviewBoard has an available upstream version that will work with either
>> (and I will now have to package early), but Transifex has no plans to
>> support Django 1.2 in the immediate future (since 1.1 will remain
>> supported upstream for some time).
>>
>> Furthermore, these issues were already discussed in the bodhi update for
>> the EPEL5 version of this package, and it was decided that the upgrade
>> was not sensible there either.
>
> When? Where? Am I right in assuming that the bodhi update has been
> _deleted_ by the packager?

Yes, the EPEL 5 bodhi update was deleted after myself and several other
members of the Fedora Infrastructure group gave it negative karma.

>
>> After that discussion, it seems to me
>> that it would have been sensible to raise a discussion about pushing
>> this update into a stable Fedora. (Rawhide was fine, as it would have
>> given Transifex several months to add compatibility).


--
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 02:43 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 10:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing.

I know it's a PITA, but it's generally worth reading the updates-testing
reports that get mailed daily to the -test list so you can catch stuff
like this. I read that every day, but I wasn't aware of the significance
of the Django version bump...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 02:48 PM
Peter Robinson
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 10:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing.
>
> I know it's a PITA, but it's generally worth reading the updates-testing
> reports that get mailed daily to the -test list so you can catch stuff
> like this. I read that every day, but I wasn't aware of the significance
> of the Django version bump...

Is this report sent out somewhere for EL-* as well?

Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 03:14 PM
Dennis Gilmore
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 09:48:00 am Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>
wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 10:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> No announcement was made that there was an update available for testing.
> >
> > I know it's a PITA, but it's generally worth reading the updates-testing
> > reports that get mailed daily to the -test list so you can catch stuff
> > like this. I read that every day, but I wasn't aware of the significance
> > of the Django version bump...
>
> Is this report sent out somewhere for EL-* as well?
>
> Peter

yes to the epel-devel list

Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 03:36 PM
H. Guémar
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

Just one thing, the title is misleading since Django 1.2.x is not an
"unsafe" version.
So what's the plan ? The update was also pushed in previous release like F12.


Best regards,
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 03:39 PM
Stephen Gallagher
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On 06/22/2010 11:36 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> Just one thing, the title is misleading since Django 1.2.x is not an
> "unsafe" version.

Well, it's unsafe to drop it into a stable distribution since it's not
completely backwards-compatible.

> So what's the plan ? The update was also pushed in previous release like F12.
>
>
> Best regards,
> H.

Unfortunately, now that it's been pushed to stable, we're stuck with it.
Probably we need to have the Transifex maintainer rebuild with a
Conflicts: Django >= 1.2 so that it will keep yum from upgrading into a
broken setup.

I've rebuilt ReviewBoard today for Fedora 13 with a compatible version.

--
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-22-2010, 06:05 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Unsafe Django version being pushed to stable

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:39:57AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 11:36 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> > Just one thing, the title is misleading since Django 1.2.x is not an
> > "unsafe" version.
>
> Well, it's unsafe to drop it into a stable distribution since it's not
> completely backwards-compatible.
>
> > So what's the plan ? The update was also pushed in previous release like F12.
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > H.
>
> Unfortunately, now that it's been pushed to stable, we're stuck with it.
> Probably we need to have the Transifex maintainer rebuild with a
> Conflicts: Django >= 1.2 so that it will keep yum from upgrading into a
> broken setup.
>
> I've rebuilt ReviewBoard today for Fedora 13 with a compatible version.
>
I don't like it when we have to resort to this but now that the packages
have gone out to the stable repository we may need to do this::
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Multiple_Versions

Parallel Django 1.1 and 1.2 stacks. Use either sys.path or setuptools
__requires__ to pull in the correct version of django depending on the app.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org