I’ve started turning my mind towards the Django 3.2 release — feature freeze is in January — which is soon enough now.
In the main this is looking at the tickets that we want to ensure make it in, and then drawing up the job list for release itself, deprecations and so on.
Given the Django 3.2 is the next LTS, on the policy thus far we’d drop support for Python versions after branching the LTS, so for 4.0 (rather than in 3.2 itself).
The policy reads:
Typically, we will support a Python version up to and including the first Django LTS release whose security support ends after security support for that version of Python ends.
At is stands, looking at the end-of-life dates for the Python versions, this would mean dropping both Python 3.6 and Python 3.7 in Django 4.0.
That was a bit of a surprise.
I was expecting to drop Python 3.6 (which is EOL just after Django 4.0 is released) but Python 3.7 has a whole extra year of life at that point, and so dropping it seems a little aggressive.
As such I’ve asked for input on mailing list as to how we might revise the policy on supported Python versions.
I’d like us to support all non-EOL Python versions if we can. I need to see how it plots out but, I’m toying with As long as it’s not EOL before we leave mainstream support.
Likely we need to say that once a Python version is EOL we don’t test against it, even for extended support, and that included LTS versions. We need a way to trim the tail of the matrix, and I don’t see that we can realistically support EOL versions of Python. (Note that there’s no reason to think that a version would break, but just that we wouldn’t test or guarantee that unless you upgraded to a non-EOL Python.)
We're still thinking about all this, and there’s not enough input yet from folks using the slower distributions and the LTS versions of Django.
What’s a reasonable policy here?
I picked up Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century earlier in the year. It sat for a while waiting for me to get to it. Having done so, I have to say it’s phenomenal.
I’m mid-way through — haven’t got to the final solutions section at the end — but the framework he provides for thinking about equality, in terms of income from labour, income from capital, and wealth, giving an historical perspective reaching back to the 18th century, is remarkable.
These are difficult topics (in difficult times) and being able to discuss them analytically is vital.
I think Piketty, and the book, deserve the credit they’ve received.
Should you read it?
It’s about 600 pages or so.
The exposition is clear — the argument is built well, and I think it would be accessible with a formal economics background. There’s more discussion of examples from literature than economic theory I’d say.
So, it’s a commitment, but not an overwhelming one.
It provides the tools for thinking about so much that is fundamental in our modern world.
So, yes, you should read it.
What’s the equivalent book for climate change?