I know I'm just a lurker, but I'd really like to see a release with
the various bug fixes and such to match up to the documentation.
There's plenty I'd like to use, and yes - I'm one of the many that
reads one and wonders why things don't work that way. I do eventually
figure it out - and not open
On 8/25/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'd ben tentatively -1 on doing a release, and more interested in
> finding a solution to the documentation problem -- we're going to need
> that solution anyway, or else we're going to end up in hot water every
> time there's something new
And after we checked in an updated tutorial with admonitions
explaining the exact source of the error for those who run into it, we
*still* got someone opening a ticket telling us the tutorial needs to
use "maxlength" instead of "max_length".
How about if we just go back to "maxlength" for even t
On 8/25/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So I'd ben tentatively -1 on doing a release, and more interested in
> finding a solution to the documentation problem -- we're going to need
> that solution anyway, or else we're going to end up in hot water every
> time there's something n
On 8/25/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The documentation issue is tough, because it really is a RTFM issue:
> all that's needed is some way to make it very clear to users of 0.96
> that they ned to use the 0.96 docs, and I wonder if perhaps changing
> the documentation landing page
> That being said if you could point me to the patch (if it exists) so
> that I can try to help get it going again in or just lend another pair
> of eyes that would be really useful. If not, and if the admin isn't in
> too much turmoil I can start implementing something like what Tai Lee
> illustr
On 8/25/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However I don't see any other way to kill the max_length problem. One
> the one hand, the max_length problem is is an RTFM issue - but on the
> other hand, if multiple users keep making the the same error over and
> over again, there com
On 8/25/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been wondering of late if we need to cut a new release. I have a
> few reasons:
>
> 1) Its been six months since the release of 0.96, and we've made some
> good progress since then;
Looking at the wiki, I couldn't he
On Aug 25, 8:21 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> However I don't see any other way to kill the max_length problem. One
> the one hand, the max_length problem is is an RTFM issue - but on the
> other hand, if multiple users keep making the the same error over and
> over again
On Aug 24, 6:03 pm, "Yuri Baburov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My question was more general than a foreign key, but let's use the
> > Person and City idea. If on the Person list page I wanted to see City,
> > it would be no problem. I could just add 'city' to the list_display
> > tuple. However
Seems reasonable to me
On Aug 26, 1:21 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been wondering of late if we need to cut a new release. I have a
> few reasons:
>
> 1) Its been six months since the release of 0.96, and we've made some
> good progress since then;
>
Hi guys,
I've been wondering of late if we need to cut a new release. I have a
few reasons:
1) Its been six months since the release of 0.96, and we've made some
good progress since then;
2) The current trunk seems to be in pretty good condition, and Malcolm
is about to land a big refactor of qu
I'd be +1 in allowing list_display options in the form of
'model__field' ('model__model__field', ...), and I have found myself
wanting this on several occasions.
Yes it is possible to create a method and call it as a column in the
results, but I think the intention with that was more for calculat
13 matches
Mail list logo
