hi,
ticket 4789 fixes a bug in select_related-queries when used with the
depth parameter.
it contains a patch which fixes the problem. it also contains the tests
for this fix.
without this patch, select_related is unusable with the depth parameter.
i understand that everyone has limited time
On Jul 27, 5:09 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It sounds like you are saying then that the base.py change results in
> what I refer to as the desirable behaviour for urls.py.
Exactly. That change ensures that the url (forward) resolver doesn't
need to worry about SCRIPT_NAME (i
Sorry bout the unfinished second half of that last message, I was just
thinking through type and I meant to delete it before posting.
On Jul 27, 4:16 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The other problem is that although with the better WSGI adapters
> SCRIPT_NAME is provided correc
On Jul 27, 2:49 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:16 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, I read the way the patch was being applied the wrong way
> > around. :-(
>
> > Anyway, one potential reason why using req.uri may be bad is that
> > Apache does
On Jul 27, 4:16 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Ahh, I read the way the patch was being applied the wrong way
> around. :-(
>
> Anyway, one potential reason why using req.uri may be bad is that
> Apache does not do complete normalisation on it. Thus, one can get
> repeating slash
On Jul 27, 1:32 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:51 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 12:34 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Reading through the mod_wsgi docs [1], I came to a section explaining
> > > a problem with Dj
On Jul 27, 2:51 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:34 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Reading through the mod_wsgi docs [1], I came to a section explaining
> > a problem with Django's core HTTP handling (search for "SCRIPT_NAME").
>
> > I have reopen
I was thinking, for the sake of helping new users learn quicker, that
the Django documentation could be organized a little more. In
particular the list under "Reference"
i would think a numbered list would be more suitable with 1 being a
good starting place and going down from there. I have not f
Here is last time this was discussed.
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/19cd0976a3010cba/5329aeb3960ceb70?lnk=gst&q=SCRIPT_NAME&rnum=2#5329aeb3960ceb70
Graham
On Jul 27, 12:51 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:34 pm, SmileyChris <[E
On Jul 27, 12:34 pm, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reading through the mod_wsgi docs [1], I came to a section explaining
> a problem with Django's core HTTP handling (search for "SCRIPT_NAME").
>
> I have reopened #285 [2] and attached a patch which seemingly fixes
> this. Could I pleas
Reading through the mod_wsgi docs [1], I came to a section explaining
a problem with Django's core HTTP handling (search for "SCRIPT_NAME").
I have reopened #285 [2] and attached a patch which seemingly fixes
this. Could I please have some people more expert than me check it out
and provide some
On 26-Jul-07, at 9:42 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> could you post this to the users list also - you may get a lot of
>> feedback from the user's point of view
>
> Actually, I've deliberately asked the SoC students to post updates
> here instead of django-users. I know all the core devs read b
On 7/27/07, Rodrigo Senra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem __only manifests for None values__ in pretty-printed XML files.
There already is a ticket for this problem - #4558, which was fixed
(or should have been fixed) in [5727].
If you have a test case that is still failing, feel fre
Hi,
I seek advice if the following behavior is a bug or a feature:
xml_serialize.py generates a blank-space-free XML file, for example :
""
If I pretty-print (introducing '\n') that XML file, for example into:
"""
"""
Then it breaks deserialization badly, because in xm
On 7/26/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing the code at the moment, having had a few
> minutes this week to chew over approaches with Jacob and Jeremy Dunck
> whilst we were in the same location.
I would've loved to be there for that conversation, it sounds like a
blas
On 7/26/07, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm starting to seriously wonder if the 80-character line width has
> outlived its usefulness. There are various naturally occurring bits
> of code that just don't fit onto a single 80-character line, and the
> options for chopping it up are all
On 7/26/07, Nicola Larosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom Tobin wrote:
> > I'm starting to seriously wonder if the 80-character line width has
> > outlived its usefulness.
>
> It has not, and it never will, until human beings stay the same: it's not a
> technological limitation.
I'm guessing t
Tom Tobin wrote:
> I'll accept that I'm an outlier, then; I'm also the only one at work
> who can't stand working with multiple and/or large monitors, and the
> only one who prefers quickly flipping between maximized windows for
> most apps rather than having multiple apps side-by-side. (Yeah, I
On 7/26/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I find it hard to imagine a programmer these days who is so starved
> > for screen real estate that they couldn't handle a width of, say, 120
> > characters;
>
> Try to imagine a bit harder then. I'm in that position, for example,
> eve
> Are Django committers willing to accept patches that reformat lines within
> 80 characters?
>
> --
> Nicola Larosa -http://www.tekNico.net/
I was curious - being a 80+ line writer myself - how many lines in
trunk were currently longer than 80 chars, so I wrote a short script.
Here's what I got
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:19:01PM +0200, Nicola Larosa wrote:
> > People seem to forget that one of the key rules in any coding guidelines
> > is "do what the existing code does" (see, e.g., the second section of
> > PEP 8). Thus, our current standards are in not in conflict with PEP 8 or
> > PEP
Sorry for unintentionally hijacking the thread originally, but Nicola
has some great
arguments in support of the 80 char limit :)
Nicola Larosa wrote
> Displaying the source code on a large screen is only one of its many uses:
> the keyword here is *interoperability*.
>
>
> You want to print
Tom Tobin wrote:
> I'm starting to seriously wonder if the 80-character line width has
> outlived its usefulness.
It has not, and it never will, until human beings stay the same: it's not a
technological limitation.
> There are various naturally occurring bits
> of code that just don't fit onto
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> That being said, whilst I strongly prefer 80 character limits, I can
> handle lines being longer in circumstances, too, for all the normal
> reasons (some lines just don't break).
All lines break, and most break gracefully, unless there's an assignment
left side longer
On 7/25/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adrian recently corrected some of my docstring additions [1][2], and I
> am posting this to the list so that we can get an official stance on the
> matter. I also suggest we add the decision to the "Coding style"
> section of the "Contributing"
On 7/26/07, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/25/07, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 26-Jul-07, at 7:36 AM, Thejaswi Puthraya wrote:
> > > This week I worked on getting the 'like' and 'between' check
> > > conditions into the project and also writing a lot o
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 23:43 +, z0n3z00t wrote:
> > That's not a great answer, but in the meantime, you might want to take
> > a look at the lazy instantiation in the GIS branch[1]. That code isn't
> > exactly what you want, but it might help get you started on a
> > descriptor-based approach t
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 09:58 -0500, Tom Tobin wrote:
> On 7/25/07, Duc Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On a somewhat related note, is it just me or does no django core developer
> > follow the "no line longer than 79 characters" note. I like using emacs
> > and I have my frame width set
On 7/26/07, Andrey Khavryuchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Tom Tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TT> I find it hard to imagine a programmer these days who is so starved
> TT> for screen real estate that they couldn't handle a width of, say, 120
> TT> characters; I code in Aquamacs Emacs o
On 7/26/07, Andrey Khavryuchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I'm on my 14" Thinkpad can fit two 80-column emacs windows
> side-by-side... This increases productivity susbtatially and makes me
> dislike lines more than 79 char :)
The same here after:
s/14"/15"/
s/emacs/vim/
;-)
(c)
--
Car
On 7/26/07, Amit Upadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/07, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm starting to seriously wonder if the 80-character line width has
> > outlived its usefulness. There are various naturally occurring bits
> > of code that just don't fit onto a single 80-
On 7/25/07, Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26-Jul-07, at 7:36 AM, Thejaswi Puthraya wrote:
> > This week I worked on getting the 'like' and 'between' check
> > conditions into the project and also writing a lot of doctests.
>
> could you post this to the users list also - you ma
"Tom Tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TT> I find it hard to imagine a programmer these days who is so starved
TT> for screen real estate that they couldn't handle a width of, say, 120
TT> characters; I code in Aquamacs Emacs on a 13" Macbook and a 15"
TT> Macbook Pro, and I come nowhere *nea
On 7/26/07, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm starting to seriously wonder if the 80-character line width has
> outlived its usefulness. There are various naturally occurring bits
> of code that just don't fit onto a single 80-character line, and the
> options for chopping it up are all
On 7/26/07, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... increasing the minimum width would ...
Err, *maximum* width, rather. ^_^
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
On 7/25/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adrian, which BDFL do we follow :)
I'm +1 to Adrian's style (descriptive, rather than prescriptive); it
feels more natural to have the docstring be a description of the given
code rather than a direct "English translation". The code itself i
On 7/25/07, Duc Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On a somewhat related note, is it just me or does no django core developer
> follow the "no line longer than 79 characters" note. I like using emacs
> and I have my frame width set at 80 and it bothers me to no end to have
> to scroll to see ev
37 matches
Mail list logo
