←back to thread

310 points brylie | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
danpalmer ◴[] No.43512772[source]
> Plain is a fork of Django

Why. This makes me sad. Plain looks great, but Django's strength is its maturity and amazing, enduring community built on contributions from thousands. Forking it will at best split contributions and mean infrequent merges, and at worst means Plain users lose out on Django improvements and Django users lose out on Plain patches.

It seems like Plain could be just a set of Django packages known to work together, and perhaps a new wrapper script replacing `django-admin`, but instead it appears it is a true fork.

Plain basically looks great. I love Django, and this is a long list of things that I'd need on top of Django anyway. Would I use a framework on top of a framework like this? I'm not sure. I just wish it was built in a way that contributed to the Django community instead of one that divides it.

replies(12): >>43512813 #>>43512854 #>>43512920 #>>43513037 #>>43513063 #>>43513104 #>>43513224 #>>43513342 #>>43513446 #>>43514468 #>>43516716 #>>43516766 #
airstrike ◴[] No.43512854[source]
The author actually addresses all of those points in the about page https://plainframework.com/about/
replies(3): >>43512938 #>>43512943 #>>43513955 #
1. rtpg ◴[] No.43512938[source]
I understand the frustrating with Django progress (and, to be honest, I would like for Django to more agressively upstream stuff).

I'm curious about what he would want to get into Django that feels like he couldn't though. Since this _is_ a fork of Django, he's still gonna hit a lot of issues that people wanting to improve Django hit.

Backwards compat is an issue, but "all of this code within the library is built off of existing assumptions" is _also_ an issue.

If all the improvements could be third party packages, just making plain be a big third party omnipackage that also has a helper to "fix" settings feels like it would go a long way.