content-sensitive Sphinx markup in django docs - still needed?

Hi, I've worked on a few patches (and noticed some others) [#9502, #11782, #11800] to the documentation to add content-sensitive Sphinx markup to improve the structure of the docs, however, in #11800 Alex commented that "Jacob has been working on/did a patch for Sphinx that allowed any literals to

Re: PASSWORD_HASHERS Check

For context, Francisco proposed this at https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33793 which was marked wontfix by Mariusz with the comment: > Django keeps "weak" password hashers for support with legacy systems and ​speeding up the tests

Re: PASSWORD_HASHERS Check

st >> settings and be none the wiser. >> >> Also I think it's a good practice, you could have modified >> PASSWORD_HASHERS years ago, and the hasher that was once secure is not any >> more. >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tim Graham wro

Re: Model-level validation

> Among the dozen of Django applications I have worked on, at 3 companies, not a single one was actually running any kind of validation. It has always been a mistake, 100% of the time, *never* the desired behavior. Besides not taking time to understand how Django works, it seems they weren't do

Re: `call_command` raises ValueError during testing

Hi Ferran, It looks like opt.option_strings is empty because "poll_ids" (in parser.add_argument()) isn't prefixed with a dash or double dash. You could instead use call_command() like this: call_command("closepoll", 1) But I think your invocation could be fixed (or at least not fail so obscur

Re: Backport for ticket 34063?

As perfectionists, it's always hard to say (and hear) "no" when this sort of request comes up. I'm unconvinced it's a serious issue that requires a break from normal policy. (Unreported for 2 years in 4 major releases; simple workaround present.) Incidentally, escalating an issue to the steerin

Re: Backport for ticket 34063?

Older Django releases are currently maintained with minimal support that allows existing projects to continue running securely. I don't think we should invest resources in promoting them as a place to use experimental features. A benefit of running an old LTS release like 3.2 is that any releas

Re: Backport for ticket 34063?

-case basis, at least if there's no consensus on the mailing list. On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 5:41:03 PM UTC-5 James Bennett wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 12:54 PM Tim Graham wrote: > > Older Django releases are currently maintained with minimal support that > allows exist

Re: Backport for ticket 34063?

Incidentally, I don't think it's important for the ultimate decision here, but I looked at the below analysis of ticket #32189. Carlton's analysis on the ticket that request.POST is empty when using 'content-type': 'application/json' remains true. The results of the tests provided in the descri

Re: GSOC 2023

Hello all, please take a look at https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/new-contributors/ to find advice for new contributors. On Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-5 arpitasriv...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Everyone , myself Arpita Srivastava a pre final year com

Re: Proposal for a "RegExpMatches" PostgreSQL ORM function

Hi, please consolidate your proposal when your ideas are complete. There's no need to start a separate thread for every function. Also, please search this mailing list and ticket tracker for past discussions that might be relevant. A quick search turned up at least https://groups.google.com/g/d

Re: Request for Guidance

Hello, please take a look at https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/new-contributors/ to find advice for new contributors. On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 2:07:02 PM UTC-5 gair...@somaiya.edu wrote: > > > > > Hello sir, i am Gairick a second year MCA student and want t

Re: Reverse for 'car_details' with arguments '('',)' not found. 1 pattern(s) tried:

Hi, You've found the wrong mailing list for this post. This mailing list is for discussing the development of Django itself, not for support using Django. This means the discussions of bugs and features in Django itself, rather than in your code using it. For support, please follow the "Getting

Re: Error

Hi, You've found the wrong mailing list for this post. This mailing list is for discussing the development of Django itself, not for support using Django. This means the discussions of bugs and features in Django itself, rather than in your code using it. For support, please follow the "Getting

Re: Claiming Tickets

Correct On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 11:32:21 AM UTC-5 jonathan...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I was reading up on the documentation for new contributors and was reading > the "Claiming Tickets" section where it says "If a ticket for this issue > already exists, make sure nobody else h

Stalebot on djangoproject.com issues

Hello, In October 2022, a stalebot was activated for djangoproject.com issues: https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/issues/1219 https://github.com/django/djangoproject.com/pull/1220 It comments on an issue if there's no activity in the last six months: "This issue has been automatically

Re: Opensource Django Project

Yes. See https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/new-contributors/ On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10:50:17 AM UTC-4 Naresh Pahariya wrote: > Me too... > > I think there is a documentation for django contribution. > > Thanks, > Naresh > > On Sat, 8 Apr, 2023, 3:51 pm Dipankar

Re: Doc make error: make: *** [Makefile:59: html] Error 127

It looks like Sphinx isn't installed. Did you `pip install docs/requirements.txt`? On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 9:12:48 AM UTC-4 Ezekiel Adetoro wrote: > I want to generate the documentation for Django, I have the folloe error > > sphinx-build -b djangohtml -n -d _build/doctrees -D language=en

Re: Can we move the activity on this list to the Forum now?

I agree with Carsten. I find the groups.google.com web interface much easier to follow and to quickly scan and see which threads I've read and which have new activity. I follow this mailing list more closely than the forum and prefer writing to it. Incidentally, when I look at the "Django Inter

Re: Transition Docs to Inline

Hi Moshe, Why is consulting the online documentation insufficient? I think most developers build Django projects while referencing the online documentation rather than while reading Django's source code. What sort of documentation would be inlined? Would this require a large amount of duplica

Re: Transition Docs to Inline

I don't think moving docs inline is a good idea. Quoting Aymeric from 2013 regarding django.contrib.admindocs [1] summarizes my feelings: """ 1) It's called the "documentation generator", but it only operates on docstrings. This promotes the idea that docstrings are appropriate documentation, w

Re: [Question] Why BaseManager._get_queryset_methods need use getattr(self.get_queryset(), name) in create_method

Hi Ryoma, a good way to investigate this would be to make the change and see if anything breaks. If I understand correctly, your suggest is: -return getattr(self.get_queryset(), name)(*args, **kwargs) +return method(*args, **kwargs) In that case, running the tes

stability of widget API

I recently updated the following patch regarding creating custom widgets: https://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/11185/11185.diff It mentions: Interfaces of classes :class:`~django.forms.widgets.Widget` and > :class:`~django.forms.widgets.MultiWidget` are still in flux, therefore - >

end of "coming soon" in the tutorial? - tutorial 5 feedback needed!

Katie Miller and Ben Sturmfels have written a fifth tutorial covering making "polls" a reusable app. I've given it an initial review, but I'm hoping we can get a few more people to give it a look and/or try it out, particularly if you are an expert in packaging (which I'm not). Thanks guys!

Re: end of "coming soon" in the tutorial? - tutorial 5 feedback needed!

https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16671 On Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:24:23 PM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote: > > Katie Miller and Ben Sturmfels have written a fifth tutorial covering > making "polls" a reusable app. I've given it an initial review, but I'm &

Re: end of "coming soon" in the tutorial? - tutorial 5 feedback needed!

Thank-you for the feedback, guys. I've updated the patch based on suggestions, so if you are interested, please take another look. https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16671 I also wanted to plug the tutorial 3 refactor that Daniel Greenfield tackled. As far as I'm concerned it's RFC if we c

Re: end of "coming soon" in the tutorial? - tutorial 5 feedback needed!

Both of these are looking really good. I've left some comments on the > tickets, mostly fairly minor suggestions. > > Russ %-) > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Tim Graham > > wrote: > > Thank-you for the feedback, guys. I've updated the patch based on

#16779 - a tutorial for first time Django contributors

Taavi Taijala has written a tutorial for new contributors that I've given an initial review. I'm hoping we can get a few more sets of eyes on it. Might be useful to pass it on to any newbies you know and have them try it out as well. Thanks! https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16779 -- Y

Re: #16779 - a tutorial for first time Django contributors

November 2, 2012 8:03:34 PM UTC-4, Tim Graham wrote: > > Taavi Taijala has written a tutorial for new contributors that I've given > an initial review. I'm hoping we can get a few more sets of eyes on it. > Might be useful to pass it on to any newbies you know and have

Re: Testing documentation

This looks great, thanks for your work on this! I've made some minor revisions and put up an HTML version of the new tutorial for easier review. http://techytim.com/django/9962/intro/tutorial05.html On Monday, November 5, 2012 12:06:53 PM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote: > > I have done some work

Re: #16779 - a tutorial for first time Django contributors

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm made some updates based on these suggestions, please see the ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16779 On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:50:18 PM UTC-5, Daniele Procida wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012, Tim Graham > > wrote:

testing tutorial feedback needed! (was: Testing documentation)

Bumping this in hopes of getting a couple more reviews. Please leave comments on the ticket or pull request: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9962 https://github.com/django/django/pull/548 On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:54:15 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote: > > This looks great, than

Re: Tutorials

Hi Daniele, I think additional tutorials would be welcome. My suggestion, before you dive in and start writing, would be to create a ticket with an outline of the proposed tutorial. That will give the community a chance to take a look and provide feedback and suggestions before you spend time

#14633 - organization of settings docs

I'd appreciate feedback on #14633- "Organize settings reference docs". So far I've broken out the settings for each contrib app into their own sections. The one comment on the pull request suggests further breaking up the settings listed in the "Core

Re: #14633 - organization of settings docs

bly looking for what it means and how it can > be configured. > > > > On 8 January 2013 08:02, Tim Graham > > wrote: > > I'd appreciate feedback on #14633 - "Organize settings reference docs". > So > > far I've broken out the settings for

Re: #14633 - organization of settings docs

, and there is no reason we have to choose an > either or. > > -Preston > > > On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:02:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> I'd appreciate feedback on >> #14633<https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14633>- "Organize settings >

Re: unittest.TestCase vs. django.test.TestCase in overview example

It seems like it could be a dangerous precedent to cater to people who don't take the time to fully read the docs, but in this case I'm a bit sympathetic. On the other hand, this example will probably be a bit more obvious when we drop support for Python 2.6 and no longer have django.utils.unit

Re: Fellow Report - October 31, 2014

obviously discussed at DjangoCon. > Although I'm definitely in support, I am curious: who made this decision > and when? > > > On 10/31/2014 04:04 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > > > > To briefly summarize the triage and review work, we continue to > > retri

Re: Cleaning up broken pipe errors in runserver

I had a look at the patch. As I mentioned on the ticket, "I am not really happy with that patch which copies the simple_server.WSGIRequestHandler.handle() method from Python's version in order to override it. The copied version is not in sync with the latest Python and I'd prefer not to be in

Re: Add ability to show the migration plan (#23359)

If we went with a separate command, would there be any problem having --list on both migrate and showmigrations. I feel like deprecating it off of migrate will cause more complaints about needless deprecations. On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:28:51 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > This used t

Unicode SlugField design decision (#16501)

I wanted to solicit feedback on the two approaches to supporting unicode in SlugField: 1. Added a unicode argument to models.SlugField and forms.SlugField. https://github.com/django/django/pull/1979 2. Added models.UnicodeSlugField and forms.UnicodeSlugField. https://github.com/django/django/pu

Re: Next LTS version after 1.4?

See the thread on this list titled "1.8 release planning" for details on the current proposal (If 1.8 is the next LTS, support for 1.4 would be extended 6 months after 1.8 is released, etc.). Feedback on that proposal appreciated. On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:59:03 AM UTC-5, Marc Tamlyn wro

Re: Multiple template engines for Django - week 4 - DEP ready for review!

Hi Aymeric, Nice work on the DEP. I tend to agree with Carl that I like a 'NAME' key in TEMPLATES rather than requiring the use of OrderedDict, but I can also see why you don't. I think it might simply the implementation if TEMPLATES was always a list of dictionaries rather than allowing it to

Re: Cleaning up broken pipe errors in runserver

e for it core > re-consideration, potentially. Yup? > > S > > On Monday, November 3, 2014 6:20:35 PM UTC, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> I had a look at the patch. As I mentioned on the ticket, "I am not >> really happy with that patch which copies the >> si

Fellow Report - November 7, 2014

Sorry for the delayed report. I am traveling in Warsaw, Krakow, and Amsterdam until next week and my work on Django will be limited. Report for week ending November 7, 2014: In addition to the work below, I added a machine to our CI cluster running Ubuntu 14.04 which contains newer databases

Re: Running flake8 on pull requests

Yes, I think so. It's been on my list of things to look into for some time. Thanks for the nudge. On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:41:02 PM UTC+1, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > Hello, > > Since we started using flake8, we made many small commits to fix glitches. > > Would it be possible to run fl

Fellow Report - November 14, 2014

Today at “Django Under the Hood” sprints, one of the major features that we expected for 1.8 was merged. Josh Smeaton has been working on “allowing annotations to accept all expressions” for nearly a year! You may review the results: https://github.com/django/django/commit/f59fd15c4928caf3dfc

Re: Documenting reporting errors on individual fields in Model.clean (#16986)

The reasoning for why it wasn't documented is provided here: https://github.com/django/django/pull/1443#issuecomment-28045150 On Monday, November 17, 2014 5:21:33 PM UTC+1, Carl Meyer wrote: > > Hi Alasdair, > > On 11/17/2014 09:05 AM, Alasdair Nicol wrote: > > Ticket #16986 (Model.clean cannot

Re: Request for removal: Mysql warnings get promoted to Exceptions in debug mode

Just to close the loop, I created a ticket and will commit shortly: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23871 On Monday, November 17, 2014 5:44:35 AM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:40:15 AM UTC+1, Aymeric Augustin wrote: >> >> 2014-11-17 10:45 GMT+01:00

Re: Explicit relative imports

I hope to get flake8 running on pull request builds soon. Then (unless there are objections) I will take a look at isort and see if it'll work for us in a similar fashion. From my perspective it would be great to get those checks automated so it's one less thing to think about during code review

Fellow Report - November 21, 2014

I’m back to a more normal schedule as of the middle of this week after traveling. I’ve been busy trying to clear the “Ready for Checkin” queue. It’s great to see more people outside of the core team reviewing patches and marking them as RFC. Yesterday I deployed the Django 1.7 update to djang

does django-admin need a man page?

I raised the issue in #23903 and Aymeric mentioned that it may be useful for downstream packagers, e.g. Debian. I installed python-django via apt-get on Ubuntu 14.04 and confirmed the existence of the man page. I'd like to remove it though (or make i

review request for anyone who likes regular expression (increasing URLs accepted by URLValidator)

Danilo Bargen has done some work to expand the types of URLs accepted by URLValidator. His patch adds support for IPv6 addresses, unicode domains, and URLs containing authentication data. This has increased the complexity of the regular expression quite a bit and I would appreciate if any expert

Adding hard dependencies to Django's test suite

There have been some proposals to add new dependencies in Django's test suite: 1. #23289 - unittest.mock (included in Python 3.3+; a backport version would need be installed when testing on Python 2.7 and 3.2) 2. #23792

delegating our static file serving

Berker has worked on integrating gunicorn with runserver so that we might be able to deprecate our own homegrown webserver. Windows support for gunicorn is supposedly coming soon which may actually make

Fellow Report - November 28, 2014

I did a lot of review this week and cleared the "ready for checkin" queue after falling behind a bit during travel earlier in the month. I hope we'll be able to release 1.7.2 next week, so please submit a patch for any of the release blockers affecting 1.7

Re: DB Migrations: Proposed fix for "Index name collisions after objects are renamed then re-created"

I'm not in favor of merging expectedFailure tests: * It adds the overhead of time running tests that we know aren't expected to work. * It's more code to maintain (might go stale in the meantime anyway). * An issue might be obsoleted (via deprecation, etc.) at some point. * When viewing commit his

Re: default current_app

Hi Peter, I am not sure if you are the original poster on that thread, but I think you'll get a better response here if you have a proposal for solving the problem that we can evaluate or a particular design decision question you are trying to get answered. Just asking us to look at that thread

Re: Status of #15619: logout via POST, but not GET

Hi Tim, There's an open pull request , but it was opened over a year ago and has gone stale. Maybe you'd like to review and update it. You can use the patch review checklist: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/writing-code/s

Re: Status of #15619: logout via POST, but not GET

> > > On 4 December 2014 at 09:52, Tim Graham > > wrote: > >> Hi Tim, >> >> There's an open pull request <https://github.com/django/django/pull/1934>, >> but it was opened over a year ago and has gone stale. Maybe you'd like

Re: Django 1.7 migrations don't respect db_table in M2M relation

Please use Django's ticket tracker to report bugs in Django: https://code.djangoproject.com/newticket Thanks! On Saturday, December 6, 2014 8:10:42 AM UTC-5, lza...@ucs.br wrote: > > > Hi, > > If is defined "db_table" in Meta class of a model, that you are using by > through, the migrations cre

Fellow Report - December 5, 2014

The release for 1.7.2 didn't happen this week as I had hoped. The team is still sorting out how to add new releasers. Maybe next week. Report for week ending December 5, 2014: Triaged --- https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2394 - fastcgi with fork method got db error (won’t fix) ht

Re: Experimental APIs DEP

I am skeptical like Carl, but it seems to me the time to introduce and discuss this DEP is when there is an actual feature that we think could benefit from this policy so we don't have to talk in hypotheticals. On Monday, December 8, 2014 7:00:44 AM UTC-5, benjaoming wrote: > > Hi guys! > > As a

Re: Proposal: Prevent data loss in the admin

Hi Rune, It's not clear to me that a fix that's coupled to the admin is the way to go when this problem could exist for any model form, etc. One ticket you didn't mention that seems like it could be a good place to start is https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16549 Tim On Monday, December 8

Re: Feature request: delegate more password related operations to auth backends (#23896)

User is only annotated with backend when calling authenticate(). On subsequent requests, or in non-request situations like the Python shell, how will you know which backend to delegate to? How do existing LDAP backends deal with this problem? (or do they just ignore it?) On Thursday, December

Re: Error accessing the table from an app with label changed

I guess this is your ticket here: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23981 I couldn't reproduce the issue so please provide more details. On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:19:41 PM UTC-5, Paulo Maciel wrote: > > I put in *db_table* the table name with the new label prefix and it > works, it

Re: Feature request: delegate more password related operations to auth backends (#23896)

and all of these tools should not be doubled in Django > admin. > > On Thursday, December 11, 2014 7:49:05 PM UTC+4, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> User is only annotated with backend when calling authenticate(). On >> subsequent requests, or in non-request situations like th

Fellow Report - December 12, 2014

Today marks one month until the scheduled alpha/feature freeze for 1.8. As far as I can tell, we are making good progress on the remaining major features that we hope to land for 1.8 (model meta refactor, multiple template engines, contrib.postgres). I wanted to highlight the patch from Thoma

Re: Feature request: delegate more password related operations to auth backends (#23896)

e changed at > source code level, and if only specific behavior logic is to be discussed, > maybe it is better to discuss this non-core developer question with wider > audience. What do you think? > > > On Saturday, December 13, 2014 3:19:26 AM UTC+4, Tim Graham wrote: >>

Re: A case for CASE expressions and bulk_update

Unlike in previous release cycles, we are going to try a complete feature freeze at alpha. The details are outlined here: https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.8Roadmap On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:01:23 PM UTC-5, Josh Smeaton wrote: > > On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 18:23:29 UTC+11, Mi

Re: Migrations in Django 1.7 make unit testing models harder

Andrew, I've thought of something similar to the in-memory migrations idea you've proposed. It would be great not to have to add and maintain migrations for all of the apps in Django's test suite. Do you think you might be able to investigate this solution in the next month or so before 1.8 alp

Re: Migrations in Django 1.7 make unit testing models harder

t to get that deprecation in, though... > > Did you want it with a view to us being able to drop that in for tests > rather than making migrations for every test app, I presume? > > Andrew > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Tim Graham > wrote: >> >> Andrew,

Re: Migrations in Django 1.7 make unit testing models harder

need a workaround again. > > Andrew > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claude Paroz > wrote: >> >> On Friday, December 19, 2014 6:30:32 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote: >>> >>> Yes. Claude has worked on the deprecation in https://github.com/django/ >>

status of 1.8 release blockers

As we approach the date for 1.8 alpha, I plan to send a weekly update on the status of release blocking issues. We currently have 3 release blockers affecting master. You can use this Trac filter to see them: https://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=assigned&status=new&version=master&severity

Fellow Report - December 19, 2014

The team has uploaded a new policy for django-releasers which should enable more members of the team to roll a release. I’m optimistic we’ll finally be able to get the 1.7.2 bug fix release out next week. https://www.djangoproject.com/m/pgp/django-releasers.txt Besides the work below, I also

intended security model for templates

I was hoping to get clarification on what security model we intend to support for template authors. In ticket #12772 it's proposed to allow loading template tags using a dotted Python path. This would allow template authors to trigger imports of any

Re: Migrations in Django 1.7 make unit testing models harder

ons to create it >> as it would error out. >> >> I'd test variations of that to see if your patch still works; if not, >> we'll need a workaround again. >> >> Andrew >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Claude Paroz > > wrote: >>

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

Here is the second update with three weeks to go until alpha: #23861 - Fields referenced in migrations cannot be (re)moved, even if migrations have been squashed #23891

Re: Multiple template engines for Django - week 12

I agree with your expected behavior for select_template() and the conclusions you drew. On Saturday, December 27, 2014 5:59:37 PM UTC-5, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > Hello, > > My twelfth update is online: > https://myks.org/en/multiple-template-engines-for-django/#2014-12-28 > > It comes with

Re: "stable API" misconception giving BaseManager and Manager as examples

In fact, there's an open ticket to create a reference of the public manager methods. There's a detailed comment from Loic about some ideas for that: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20768 I think our existing policy about stable APIs being the ones that are documented works pretty well. I

Fellow Report - December 26, 2014

I spent a good chunk of time this week reviewing two of the major features for 1.8 (multiple template engines and _meta refactor), as well as fixing and researching release blockers (more on that in the "status of 1.8 release blockers" thread). With two weeks left until the scheduled alpha, I

Re: Updating logging docs

Definitely would be welcome. Perhaps these tickets cover at least some of your points: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23394 - Need documentation for merging the project's logging configuration with Django's defaults https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23784 - Error reporting docs needs

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

Ramio Last time: no update On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:49:59 AM UTC-5, Markus Holtermann wrote: > > On Monday, December 29, 2014 10:40:06 AM UTC+1, Claude Paroz wrote: >> >> On Saturday, December 27, 2014 4:46:52 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote: >>> >>>

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

Here is the fourth update with a week to go until alpha. At this time, I am thinking we'll have the feature freeze on Monday, January 12 as planned, but perhaps issue the actual alpha release a couple days later just to give some time for some extra polish in case any large patches are committed

Fellow Report - January 2, 2015

This week I focused on release blockers and helping with review of the Model._meta pull request. Thanks to James Bennett for helping me with the bug fix releases last night. Report for week ending January 2, 2015: Triaged --- https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24062 - Reversing Model

Re: Multiple template engines for Django - week 13

I don't think it's fair to put pressure on Aymeric like that. It seems to me with should, if anything, be more conservative with an LTS -- not try to cram in last minute features. We have 2-3 months until the scheduled final release -- if we liberalize our "rules", I'm sure we can kick that date

documenting changes to the database backend API

To authors of third-party database backends, We'd like to start documenting changes to the database backend API [1], but we need some help with this. First, please introduce yourself and which backend you maintain so we know of your existence. Second, we'd like to know if you attempt to suppor

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

om/query?status=assigned&status=new&keywords=~1.8-alpha On Saturday, January 3, 2015 at 1:19:25 PM UTC-5, jdunck wrote: > > Thank you, Tim, for shepherding this. > On Jan 3, 2015 8:09 AM, "Tim Graham" > > wrote: > >> Here is the fourth update with a week t

Fellow Report - January 9, 2015

This is my second to last report before the fellowship pilot ends. If you’d like to see the program happen again, please encourage your company or organization to donate to the DSF . Highlights of this week in

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

We did it -- all features are in or out for alpha. Please consider master frozen for new features until we cut the stable/1.8.x branch later this week. Feel free to commit code cleanups and/or bug fixes until then. On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 1:14:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Graham wrote: > > H

[ANNOUNCE] Security releases issued (1.4.18, 1.6.10, 1.7.3)

Today the Django team is issuing multiple releases -- Django 1.4.18, Django 1.6.10, and Django 1.7.3 -- as part of our security process. These releases address several security issues, and we encourage all users to upgrade as soon as possible. More details can be found on our blog: https://www

Re: Generic relations and aggregation

Yes, there is an open ticket to update the documentation: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24019 If you're able to work on a patch, I'll be happy to review it. On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 5:56:26 PM UTC-5, x13 wrote: > > > According to Django 1.7 Docs, aggregation API is not working w

Re: Can't login after upgrading to 1.7.3, and workaround

Hi Horacio, Thanks for the report. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce this issue. My steps to reproduce using the project from the tutorial: Bump PBKDF2PasswordHasher.iterations to a higher value Login at /admin/ Confirm at /admin/auth/user/#/ that the password of the user I logged in as reflects

Re: status of 1.8 release blockers

that wouldn't meet this deadline. On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 1:50:26 AM UTC-5, Tino de Bruijn wrote: > > Congratulations! Looks like you've steadily moved it through. > > Tino > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Tim Graham > wrote: > >> We did it --

Fellow Report - January 16, 2015

Here’s my final report for the 3 month fellowship pilot. I hope the DSF’s fundraising efforts will be successful and I’ll have an opportunity to "be back" soon. :-) On Monday, I reviewed the last couple of tickets before the 1.8 feature freeze. On Tuesday, we had the security release. I’ve b

[ANNOUNCE] Django 1.8 alpha 1 released

We've made the first release on the way to Django's next long-term support release, Django 1.8! With only two and a half months until the scheduled final release, we'll need prompt testing from the community to ensure a timely and stable release. Check out the blog post: https://www.djangoproje

Re: Fellow Report - January 16, 2015

gt; > On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 10:19:15 PM UTC+2, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> Here’s my final report for the 3 month fellowship pilot. I hope the DSF’s >> fundraising efforts will be successful and I’ll have an opportunity to "be >> back" soon. :-) >> >

docstring verbs

The current version of our style guide [1] recommends to use "action verbs" (Checks instead of Check). However this contradicts PEP 257 (Docstring Conventions) [2]. The current code mixes these two forms. Claude advocates to follow the PEP [3]. Anyone care to comment on the historical reason w

Pull request builder now on Ubuntu 14.04

The pull request builders are now running on Ubuntu 14.04. The master still runs 12.04 and handles builds for versions older than 1.8 as those builds don't pass on 14.04. Also I've reserved three of the slaves for the pull request builder -- this should hopefully cut down on the dreaded "git ch

Re: Can't login after upgrading to 1.7.3, and workaround

on count > Use a new browser (or private window) and log the same user into the admin > Refresh the admin page of the first user -> login window > > Cheers, > Florian > > On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 2:31:55 AM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote: >> >> Hi Horacio, >&

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >