Update to Python 3.8 and Django 1.11

[russtoku]

This is a step toward running UIPA.org on supported versions of Python and Django without upgrading to a newer upstream version of Froide.

Changes:

• Upgrade from Python 2.7 to 3.8.
• Upgrade from Django 1.9 to 1.11.
• Remove django-overextends dependency (Django 1.9 already included this functionality).
• Remove pysolr dependency.
• Inclusion of froide source tree to eliminate another repo to look after and the need to install it as an editable dependency.
• Update dev settings so that froide tests can be run.
• Add a roadmap for upgrading to currently supported Python and Django.
• Add site map to document current functionality (covers most of the basic functionality; needs some love).

NOTE: This is for the branch that is currently running UIPA.org.

[sthapa]

Hi Russ, Just a few comments here. First, it looks like the sitemap is being updated to point to your forked repo. I'm not sure that's what really want.

Also, I'm not sure that we want to keep the existing froide code base and update it to support django 4.x or 5.x. The newer froide code has features like support for 2FA which is really nice and seems to work fine when Brian and I tested it on a dev uipa instance.

Finally, have you a chance to test your changes against the existing uipa code base when running in a container?

Maybe we can meet or discuss this somewhere to avoid duplicating efforts?

[russtoku]

First, it looks like the sitemap is being updated to point to your forked repo. I'm not sure that's what really want.

The raw version of the README.md file has the correct links to the site map and roadmap. If you hover over the links when viewing it on Github, browsers will show the URL to view the link target on Github. So, I think it should be OK.

Also, I'm not sure that we want to keep the existing froide code base and update it to support django 4.x or 5.x. The newer froide code has features like support for 2FA which is really nice and seems to work fine when Brian and I tested it on a dev uipa instance.

Yes, 2FA is good. It could be back-ported.

Finally, have you a chance to test your changes against the existing uipa code base when running in a container?

No, I haven't tested my changes in a container. Assuming that the future production deployment will be in containers, then that is a must-do.

Maybe we can meet or discuss this somewhere to avoid duplicating efforts?

Sure, I'd be happy to meet in person to discuss thing. DM me on Slack.

[sthapa]

First, it looks like the sitemap is being updated to point to your forked repo. I'm not sure that's what really want.

The raw version of the README.md file has the correct links to the site map and roadmap. If you hover over the links when viewing it on Github, browsers will show the URL to view the link target on Github. So, I think it should be OK.

I'm looking at the diffs, in particular this one and the strings in the diff appear to point to your repo. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think those are being changed behind the scenes.

Also, I'm not sure that we want to keep the existing froide code base and update it to support django 4.x or 5.x. The newer froide code has features like support for 2FA which is really nice and seems to work fine when Brian and I tested it on a dev uipa instance.

Yes, 2FA is good. It could be back-ported.

Sure, we can backport that. But I don't think it's feasible to backport features and security fixes from 7+ years of development on the froide codebase. At the very least, I think we'd need to go through changes and identify and bring over security fixes and that's likely to be a lot of work.

Finally, have you a chance to test your changes against the existing uipa code base when running in a container?

No, I haven't tested my changes in a container. Assuming that the future production deployment will be in containers, then that is a must-do.

Brian and I have been working with and testing a new uipa website using containers and I see using containers to deploy simply because it makes life easier and gives us assurances that we're testing what the production site will be.

[russtoku]

I'm looking at the diffs, in particular this one and the strings in the diff appear to point to your repo. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think those are being changed behind the scenes.

Yes, you are correct. Will push an update for that. Thanks!