Massive congratulations and thanks all around, and to Malcolm!
On Apr 27, 1:04 am, "Mike Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Congratulations Malcolm,
>
> You very much deserve a big pat on the back for the entirety of the work you
> have done.
>
> We've been testing on 3 of our websites the QS-RF
Congratulations Malcolm,
You very much deserve a big pat on the back for the entirety of the work you
have done.
We've been testing on 3 of our websites the QS-RF branch, with little to no
issues, and lots of benefits.
Regards,
Mike Scott
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
On Apr 27, 1:37 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In particular, I thought I had remembered some discussion a while back
> > about how expensive different test packages were, since each package
>
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I merged queryset-refactor into trunk just now. This was changeset
> r7477.
w00t! Great work Malcolm. This is a big change, a long time coming,
but well worth the wait. Thanks for all the effort you have put int
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In particular, I thought I had remembered some discussion a while back
> about how expensive different test packages were, since each package
> requires a setup/teardown of the database. Normally this is an
> accepta
We have postcode data for all of Australia, enabling the suburb and
state/territory to be derived from a postcode. That's about 17,000
records, so would best be stored in a database, not kept in memory as
a localflavor.
Data like this would be really useful to developers who want to make
I had mentioned this a while back, in passing, but I'd like to bring
it up again now that the filestorage patch is getting close to making
it into trunk.
In particular, I thought I had remembered some discussion a while back
about how expensive different test packages were, since each package
req
I merged queryset-refactor into trunk just now. This was changeset
r7477.
There are still a couple of enhancements to do, but I've decided they're
not worth holding up the entire branch for. I can just as easily do them
on trunk.
Thanks to everybody who reported bugs and tested things. Thanks
es
I like the lookup objects idea for aggregates, it's similar to Q
objects and I think it works well. It is far more extensible then the
__ notation.
On Apr 26, 7:59 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 12:33 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > If the aggregate function is provided as an anonymous argument (e.g.,
> > Avg('height')), then the aggregate is asked to provide an appro
On Apr 26, 12:33 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> So - here's a slightly modified proposal. Last time this topic came up
> on django-dev, Justin Fagnani made an interesting suggestion which I
> think will answer your objections, and leaves open some interesting
> possibiliti
On Apr 25, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Hold on. One of the reasons a fair bit of effort was put into making
> it
> much easier to subclass model fields is so that we don't have to play
> this endless game of adding every type of specialised field under the
> sun.
>
> If your a
I fixed all these problems for me already, Malcolm; but it seems it
may be confusing for some people that Django does not support more
than 4.2G entries in a table out-of-the-box, without such specific
tuning. 4.2G is a really not that large number.
On 26 апр, 06:22, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PR
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 26, 7:34 am, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> >
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Have you considered syntax that looks like this ins
On Apr 26, 7:34 am, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Have you considered syntax that looks like this instead? :
> > > >>> Students.objects.all().aggregate({'average_height': 'height__avg})
> > >
15 matches
Mail list logo
