Skip to content
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

1.1.0b2 - Jinja2 upper bound causes conflict in existing deployments #1358

Closed
benjaoming opened this issue Oct 12, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1360
Closed

1.1.0b2 - Jinja2 upper bound causes conflict in existing deployments #1358

benjaoming opened this issue Oct 12, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1360
Labels
Bug A bug Needed: design decision A core team decision is required
Milestone

Comments

@benjaoming
Copy link
Contributor

The current pre-release will not fly with existing deployments that have already pinned the latest Jinja2 release.

Needs a decision:

  • Release as is Jinja2<3.1
  • Bump to Jinja2<3.2 and do a new pre-release
@benjaoming benjaoming added Needed: design decision A core team decision is required Bug A bug labels Oct 12, 2022
@benjaoming benjaoming added this to the 1.1 milestone Oct 12, 2022
@agjohnson
Copy link
Collaborator

The upper bounds were added with #1316, and replicate the fix that we instructed users to use to resolve the issue on their projects (pin Jinja2<3.1).

However, there is nothing on the theme that requires a specific Jinja2 version. Perhaps this is the wrong place to apply this fix entirely.

I'd instead suggest removing the dependency entirely, and fix the errors in CI by tuning dependencies with tox/etc instead.

@benjaoming
Copy link
Contributor Author

Brilliant @agjohnson !

It's nice that we didn't have to take these steps. The simplest solution is almost always the right one :) => #1360

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug A bug Needed: design decision A core team decision is required
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants