> This is the most exciting and interesting thing in the release:

Absolutely. My expectation is that this alone should dramatically increase app response times for any reasonably DB-dependant application.

It does. You can currently do this with an external Django DB Pool module, for some numbers see: http://mixedbit.org/blog/2013/02/06/django_db_pool_on_heroku...

I also can't wait to have such mode fully supported by the core product.

Typo or sarcasm?

Connection pooling? I am surprised to find out that Django doesn't have this feature until now. Is there any specific reason why this wasn't implemented much earlier? Old tech like plain asp had this more than a decade ago.

There are external apps that provide this. https://github.com/gmcguire/django-db-pool https://github.com/kennethreitz/django-postgrespool https://github.com/niwibe/djorm-ext-pool

I would take a look at the actual implementation [1].

It is clearly not a full-featured connection pool. Sure, it gives some quick performance wins within each thread, but this is no proper cross-process connection pool.

[1] - https://github.com/django/django/commit/2ee21d9f0d9eaed0494f...

So, when will we have prepared statements upon persistent connections? This would be the biggest speed up of all factors.

As soon as someone decides to develop it. Remember: Django is open source software, maintained by a community of competent, dedicated and exceedingly generous developers who give us the privilege of using their software for free.

I just read through the entire, long release document, which listed dozens of changes, large and small. Not a single mention of Python 3 that I could see (though, of course, I could have missed it.) This was supposed to have been the first version of Django in--how many years?--that the version of Python you could build production websites with was the current Python, not a legacy.

That this fact is not the headline, and apparently not even considered worthy of mention in a long list of "miscellaneous" items, suggests that those of us who aren't legacy Python 2 users (and don't ever intend to be) just aren't Django's target market. Django has been around for a relatively long time accumulating so many long-time users that I understand the desire to make supporting those who long ago entrusted their businesses to Django the #1 priority. The flip side of that, though, is that those of us without such a legacy would seem destined to be lower priority, maybe significantly lower, for at least a few more years.

If there is no Flask in the next year or so that is redesigned to focus primarily on Python 3 web dev, we'll still use Python 3 for various tasks, but for web dev it might make more sense for us to just move on to another language with a more-recently-designed framework.

Wow, you're really making a ton of assumptions based on no evidence. I'm sorry you have such trouble assuming good faith.

Fact is, we just forgot to mention it. Django's working so well on Py3 that it kinda seems like no big deal any more, so we forgot to mention it in the release notes. I'll fix that once I get a chance.

Django has supported python 3 since version 1.5 - the last major release:

https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/python3/

> Django has supported python 3 since version 1.5 - the last major release

Python 3 support in 1.5 was marked as "experimental"[1], with 1.6 being the release that was supposed to be marked as suitable for general use. I believe that's what GP is referring to.

[1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/faq/install/#can-i-use...

Yes, but 1.5 claimed only "experimental support", adding that they thought it probably would work all right but didn't want to recommend Python 3 for production yet. The unqualified "yes, we now consider it ready and can recommend Python 3 for production," was promised for Django 1.6. They probably have achieved that goal, but the fact that there is no mention of it anywhere in a document that mentions so many other things suggests that "for the first time, we can now recommend the use of Python 3 for production" isn't something they think their target market cares about as much as the several dozen other "issues" they DID mention.

Well, this is just the alpha release of the Django 1.6 so production recommendations (other than "don't use this for production yet") are probably a bit premature.

If you are very concerned about this, you should bring it up on the django-dev list:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/django-de...

Again, see my comment up-thread. Your assumptions are rather incorrect.

Yes, but his complaint is rather valid. Those that prepared the release notes made a mistake in not mentioning Python 3 related improvements / status.

Yup, we made a mistake. You could help by submitting a patch to fix it, or you could just choose to be a jerk and give some random person shit for making a mistake.

Your choice.

jacobian acknowledged that oversight hours ago...

>Fact is, we just forgot to mention it. Django's working so well on Py3 that it kinda seems like no big deal any more, so we forgot to mention it in the release notes. I'll fix that once I get a chance.

It works fine. I'm working on my 2nd Django project using Python 3.3. The only missing component is South, and that isn't part of Django (although it'd be nice if it were).

South supports Python 3 as of a couple of days ago.

http://www.aeracode.org/2013/5/22/south-08-migrations-and-dj...

It will be..

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewgodwin/schema-migr...