Re: How close are we to 0.96?

On 3/9/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How close are we to tagging the tree for 0.96? Close :) There are still a couple bugs to be knocked off, and a couple documentation things I'd like to see shored up, though. And since this release is going to be the recommended stable v

How close are we to 0.96?

James (mostly), How close are we to tagging the tree for 0.96? The motivation behind the question is that I really want to check in a version of the patch in #2635, which adds a bunch of nice improvements to the MySQL side of things (including some great docs). This will help a with a bunch of l

Re: Syndication Contrib and HTTP Not Modified

Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > Cool. I'll have a look at it in detail. From a first read, though, it > looks like a reasonable approach: building in cache management to the > view. Why can't this be done using the normal CacheMiddleware, though? > I hadn't read the source on that; now I have. It's

Re: Syndication Contrib and HTTP Not Modified

On 3/8/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You may be unlucky here in who chose to respond. There's evidence to > suggest that I'm more of a hard-ass on this front than the other core > developers, but only by a little bit. Bah. Now I have to respond, because I've got a reputation

Re: Tickets on send_mass_mail functionality (multipart/encoding/TLS/BCC)

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 04:09 -0800, Simon G. wrote: > Good Evening Djuggernauts, > > I've spent some time looking over the email related tickets in Trac, > and think I've got them sorted out a bit. I'm hoping to spur some > discussion on some of these, so here's a brief recap. Nice work, again, S

Re: Syndication Contrib and HTTP Not Modified

Hey Jeremy, On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 12:37 -0500, Jeremy Bowers wrote: > Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > > For concreteness, I've added a ticket and there is a code-only patch at > http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/3680/cache.control.on.syndication.code.only.diff > > . The patch is exc

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:49 -0500, Joseph Perla wrote: > Thanks for that thoughtful response. Let me just point to the > specific one I've been hoping to get through for the past couple > months, very small in scope and complete, that should be checked in: > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:08 -0600, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > On 3/6/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A bunch of them have subsequently been notated as waiting until after > > 0.96 or they are for another branch. Some others are not no-brainers, so > > require some thought and for

MANAGEMENT TRAINGING AND CONTROLLING SOFTWARES

*Management is just a Game* [image: Best Managment Solutions] *Busines Management Solutions* *+* *Personal Financial Management Solutions* ** *and* ** *Softwares * ** *Free Downlaods...* Management Plus. -- Tania

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

Jeremy Dunck schrieb: > On 3/8/07, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jeremy Dunck: >>> I wonder if, due to patches getting out of sync with trunk, tickets >>> that have been "Ready for Checkin" for longer than x weeks should go >>> back to Accepted? >> Why? As long as they apply, wha

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On 3/8/07, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jeremy Dunck: > > I wonder if, due to patches getting out of sync with trunk, tickets > > that have been "Ready for Checkin" for longer than x weeks should go > > back to Accepted? > > Why? As long as they apply, what's the problem? Right-

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

Jeremy Dunck: > I wonder if, due to patches getting out of sync with trunk, tickets > that have been "Ready for Checkin" for longer than x weeks should go > back to Accepted? Why? As long as they apply, what's the problem? Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You recei

Re: Syndication Contrib and HTTP Not Modified

Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: For concreteness, I've added a ticket and there is a code-only patch at http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/3680/cache.control.on.syndication.code.only.diff . The patch is exceedingly lightly tested (I've only smoke tested it on a local dev box, and I hav

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On 3/6/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A bunch of them have subsequently been notated as waiting until after > 0.96 or they are for another branch. Some others are not no-brainers, so > require some thought and for a committer to have a block of time > available to drop them in

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

Thanks for that thoughtful response. Let me just point to the specific one I've been hoping to get through for the past couple months, very small in scope and complete, that should be checked in: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3182 . I assumed that since this simple one hasn't gone through,

Tickets on send_mass_mail functionality (multipart/encoding/TLS/BCC)

Good Evening Djuggernauts, I've spent some time looking over the email related tickets in Trac, and think I've got them sorted out a bit. I'm hoping to spur some discussion on some of these, so here's a brief recap. We currently have requests to: #1541 - Add Multipart Message capability to mail

Re: Ticket 3625 - rsplit not python 2.3 compatible

Thanks for the commit Malcolm - seems you were right on my heels! And James: will test on my own 2.3 install. Thanks both. -Phil On 07/03/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/7/07, Phil Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It renders a new Django installation on Python 2.3 pr

Re: newforms and encoding problems

For me works like: [...] form = ProfileForm(request.POST.copy()) if form.is_valid(): data = form.clean_data for i in data : if isinstance(data[i], unicode): data[i] = data[i].encode(settings.DEFAULT_CHARSET) [...] No need to create an old_data.

FileField/ImageUpload saves upload-to path as \...\...\ instead of /.../.../ in database

Hi All, Is there a way to change the default path of the image to use backslash (/../) instead of the forward slash? I declared the following in my model img = models.ImageUpload(upload_to='upload/img/') but in the database the column's value is saved as upload\img \django.jpg When i display