Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 13 mai 2013, at 04:51, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > The core team has implemented a process that we think works. It has changed > over time, and is something that we feel is practical to implement, and > achieves the goals we're aiming to achieve. Not only do we think it works, but we have

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > My apologies if I wasn't clear - that wasn't what I was saying at all. What > I meant is that we can't institute a process like "Every core developer must > spend 4 hours per week triaging tickets or they will lose their core > develope

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

Hi, On Monday 13 May 2013, Tom Evans wrote: > > Perhaps this wasn't clear, that was a member of your community trying > to make it happen. There have been several attempts over the past 5 > years by people trying to make it happen. Each time someone has tried > to make it happen, after the initia

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

Hi all, On Sun, 12 May 2013, Shai Berger wrote: those should probably be updated (on remote objects!) too, or else some serious inconsistencies may be created (when the _id field changes, that is). aa= A.objects.get(...) bb= aa.b (some other operation, changing aa.b_id in the database) aa.re

Re: test discovery

Russ & Carl, I'm interested in this one, so I sketched up a potential avenue tonight (https://github.com/toastdriven/django/compare/check_setup). I actually implemented Russ' setup first, but ran into a couple issues, so I pared it down into an "opt-in" scheme. If there's a feeling like th

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

Hi all, On Mon, 13 May 2013, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: This isn't political equivocating. Its a genuine call to the community to tell us how we can make things better. If I may make a suggestion to be considered by the community: The status WONTFIX sounds awfully rude to me. It's like sayin

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On May 13, 2013, at 5:12 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >> This isn't political equivocating. Its a genuine call to the community to >> tell us how we can make things better. > > If I may make a suggestion to be considered by the commu

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 13 May 2013 11:12, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > This isn't political equivocating. Its a genuine call to the community to >> tell us how we can make things better. >> > > If I may make a suggestion to be considered by the community: >

Re: first() and last(), earliest() and latest()

> > I initially modeled "first()" and "last()"'s behaviors to mimic > > "latest()", but in this new pull request, you can pass multiple field names > > into "first()" and "last()" so it behaves like "order_by()". It's more > > flexible and requires less typing, but I wonder if we should just get

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

Hi Tom -- It really sucks that when I say "if you have feedback please send it over here", you hear "I'm not listening". I'm sorry, but I don't have the mental bandwidth to follow 20,000 individual tickets. It's impossible. I just fucking can't do it. Believe me, I've tried, and failed, many time

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > The status WONTFIX sounds awfully rude to me. I've thought so, too, but every time I've tried to come up with an alternate name I've failed. Any suggestions? FWIW, "won't fix" has a long history as a term of art in bug tracking; it refers to

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 05/13/2013 11:23 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: >> The status WONTFIX sounds awfully rude to me. > > I've thought so, too, but every time I've tried to come up with an > alternate name I've failed. Any suggestions? WONTFIX does sound rude

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On May 13, 2013, at 10:06 AM, AK wrote: > WONTFIX does sound rude to me, as well. Perhaps 'onholdindefinite' can > be used instead, the effective meaning is the same, just the term itself > is more polite. It seems that nobody looking at it would think "I'll > just wait for a while and surely it

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 05/13/2013 11:06 AM, AK wrote: On 05/13/2013 11:23 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Chris Wilson > wrote: >> The status WONTFIX sounds awfully rude to me. > > I've thought so, too, but every time I've tried to come up with an > alternat

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

I think it's better to follow the convention used by almost every other bug tracker and stick with WONTFIX. Changing the name will be confusing. I think the best route forward is to not take bug status wording as a personal offense and be happy that those that set the status almost always give an e

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > > On Sun, 12 May 2013, Shai Berger wrote: > > those should probably be updated (on remote objects!) too, or else some serious inconsistencies may be created (when the _id field changes, that is). >>> >> aa= A.objec

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Hi Tom -- > > It really sucks that when I say "if you have feedback please send it > over here", you hear "I'm not listening". > > I'm sorry, but I don't have the mental bandwidth to follow 20,000 > individual tickets. It's impossible. I

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Keith-Magee < russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > > Looking for a positive outcome here -- my question to the community, and > especially those that feel that we've been unresponsive here: how do we > improve the situation? > I've been lurking on this thread

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

> > How about allowing comments only from the patch author and committers? > The problem I see with this is that original bug reporters, aside from the aforementioned groups, are usually the ones most engaged in these comments, and eliminating them from the process will only serve to further di

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

Hi Tom, On Monday 13 May 2013, Tom Evans wrote: > > You're not the only person who has time constraints, each of has a > choice of what we work on in our spare time. When I read these sorts > of tickets, perfectly valid feature requests knocked down for > precisely no reason, why should I waste m

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

Hi Luke, On Mon, 13 May 2013, Luke Sneeringer wrote: On May 13, 2013, at 10:06 AM, AK wrote: WONTFIX does sound rude to me, as well. Perhaps 'onholdindefinite' can be used instead, the effective meaning is the same, just the term itself is more polite. It seems that nobody looking at it woul

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, 13 May 2013, Kirby, Chaim [BSD] - PED wrote: WONTFIX has a long history in software development. It also does (correctly) state intentionality that 'onholdindefinite' lacks. The intention of WONTFIX is "yes, this is possibly valid, but in the state this ticket is written it is being cl

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

There is a fundamental problem here, albeit one that is rooted in simple misunderstanding. The burden of proof is on the originator of an idea (i.e., the ticket reporter). Arguments can be made against the idea in the ticket. Rebuttal is sent elsewhere. Regardless of the intention, this automat

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 13 mai 2013, at 21:15, Chris Wilson wrote: > I think it *IS* different to the standard "won't fix". The standard one > implies "won't fix EVER" to me, whereas I think the way Django uses this > status is "won't fix until someone persuades on the mailing list." Which > could be expressed bet

Re: Triaging: Close as needsinfo

Hi Shai, On 11 mai 2013, at 22:58, Shai Berger wrote: > On one hand -- should I have closed it myself, and saved a core-dev the > trouble? The triaging guide[1] seems very inconclusive about this, advising > on > other reasons to close tickets but not on needsinfo (except "tickets which > ar

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 05/13/2013 12:11 PM, Luke Sneeringer wrote: > On May 13, 2013, at 10:06 AM, AK wrote: > >> WONTFIX does sound rude to me, as well. Perhaps 'onholdindefinite' can >> be used instead, the effective meaning is the same, just the term itself >> is more polite. It seems that nobody looking at it

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On 05/13/2013 01:16 PM, Anders Steinlein wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > Looking for a positive outcome here -- my question to the community, and especially those that feel that we've been unresponsive here: how do we improve the situation? > >

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

I have a thought on an action we could take out of this that might be constructive. Would it be possible to customise trak at all to make the workflow clearer? I'm thinking if someone tries to open a ticket that was closed by a committer then they should get an intermediate page pointing them

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

As a fellow lurker (sorry I've been using Flask more recently), I think this could simply be fixed via a form response. Here's a simple example: This bug is being marked as "WONTFIX" because Please realize that every API/feature added to Django needs to be maintained across several versions. The

Ticket 13978: Allow inline js/css in forms.Media

I have a working patch with tests and docs for #13978, which would add the ability to have inline JS and CSS in forms.Media. I feel that this ticket is a much better solution than, e.g., scattering the required inline media throughout your templates. However the issue was raised that this goes

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > How about allowing comments only from the patch author and committers? >> > > The problem I see with this is that original bug reporters, aside from the > aforementioned groups, are usually the ones most engaged in these comments, > and eliminati

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > I don't think anyone is asking you to do this. This ticket in question > wasn't lacking bandwidth from committers, it was visited many times by > committers, who each time summarily dismissed the ticket - "We're not > doing this because x years a

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

On May 13, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Peter wrote: > I have a thought on an action we could take out of this that might be > constructive. > > Would it be possible to customise trak at all to make the workflow clearer? > > I'm thinking if someone tries to open a ticket that was closed by a committer

Re: Perception of attitude in tickets

hi all: Long time lurker. Would like to say that I have benefited greatly from the expertise on the group, and to extend my thanks to all the developers who have contributed with such undying enthusiasm to Django and the simple users and noobies on this list and the users group. Having been in

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Andrew Ingram wrote: > On 12 May 2013, at 00:55, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > > I'm sure I understand this argument. Python objects are passed around by > reference, not by value, so if you've passed in a Django object deep into > another library, that library w