-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 954
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update Django 5.0 #1712
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Update Django 5.0 #1712
Conversation
Ideally, we would also want to be running the same version of Django on both djangoproject.com and code.djangoproject.com (https://github.com/django/code.djangoproject.com). That's because the two sites talk to the same database (Trac uses Django's user database for authentication), and that might break if for example a newer version of Django changes the user model. |
Looks like Django 5.0 changed the way that I've pushed a commit to the PR's branch that should fix the test suite 🤞🏻 |
Thanks for the fix and the explanation. 🙏 |
I didn't know that, so I opened an issue over there: |
8e8f334
to
40cc2e3
Compare
Sorry, I rebased to fix a requirements conflict and I dropped your commit, can you push it again? |
Done (I think) 👍🏻 |
4b5001f
to
6c811cd
Compare
I think I'm ready to merge this (and django/code.djangoproject.com#222). The question that remains for me is whether this would be disruptive for the translation work @marksweb has been doing. Is it better to wait until all the translation PRs have been merged, or can we update Django now and deal with the consequences in the PRs afterwards? |
I don't see how upgrading to Django 5.0 could be disruptive for the great internationalization work made by Mark. BTW, this PR is a blocker for #1650 which would solve #1703, so I would merge this ASAP. |
6c811cd
to
2801a47
Compare
I squashed the commits. |
@bmispelon I'm happy for this to merge & then I'll rebase my PRs. I can't see any conflicts occurring from this. |
I'll hope you allow me a bit of negativity here, but I find it frustrating seeing a comment like this. I've been doing my best reviewing PRs and fixing bugs in production on a site that has not effectively been maintained for years. Telling me something is urgent will not magically give me more free time, or more energy to work on this (quite the opposite in fact). Plus the root causes of #1693 and #1703 have not been identified, so claiming that #1650 is going to fix them is wishful thinking at best. I would find it more helpful if you explained what you did to make sure that this update would not break production for example. Did you run the test suite with the warnings on? Did you go through the removed features in the release notes and checked they didn't apply to us (what's the effect of dropping |
It seems that a test is failing after the upgrade