I have read threads on 1.0 , some one more than an year old and some
very recent. I see exactly same issues being discussed. 1.0 has been
discussed for way too long. Get past it.
Thats why I proposed "publishing a plan and freezing the scope and
hitting it. " see details on earlier post in this
On Jun 9, 12:53 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi gang,
>
> I've been hunting down some bugs with serialization of multi-table
> inheritance, and I need a sanity check on something that I want to
> check in.
Aargh. Ignore this message - problem exists between keyboard an
Hi gang,
I've been hunting down some bugs with serialization of multi-table
inheritance, and I need a sanity check on something that I want to
check in.
Specifically, I think I've found a discrepancy in the way
OneToOneFields are used. Consider these examples:
class Place(models.Model):
nam
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ashish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my proposal is
You do know that a list of what has to happen before 1.0, and a page
listing the status of each item, has been available for quite some
time, right? I
> Lack of visibility on what is going on with 1.0 and over an
my proposal is
1) core developers decide an absolute minimum features that needs to
be implemented to get to 1.0 rc and FREEZE it. Push all other features
out beyond 1.0. Ignore any other requests.
2) Focus on only those features and any critical bugs.
3) Between 1.0 rc and 1.0 final/ga do only b
Am 08.06.2008 um 22:10 schrieb Andrew Durdin:
> Speaking of sprints, are there any plans to hold a Django sprint
> during Europython 2008 (only one month away now)?
I added Django to the Sprint Suggestions page in the Europython wiki
[1] some time ago and remember Jacob agreeing that it's a g
Release an interim version because 0.96 is getting stale.
Leave newforms admin out because its taking forever.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send em
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Wait for newforms-admin to be done, merge it, and release 1.0 (well,
> a series of beta/rcs, then final). This has been "plan A" all along.
+1; this is The Right Thing.
> * Release an interim release right away to r
On Jun 8, 1:23 am, "Rob Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Where I work we use 0.96 (though I use trunk on my personal projects).
> We use 0.96 because we have up to 12 separate Django projects
> rotating through at a time and all at various phases of development.
> We don't have the resource
Hi,
I had a problem with the admin interface and found a related issue
from a trac ticket. I sent my below email to the users' list but
didn't get any reply. I guess you guys here have more insight of
Django and maybe can point me to the right direction? I have been
struggling with this for 2 days
The longer you leave it, more incompatible changes are going to be
introduced between 0.96 and 1.0. If a release is made between then it
gives people a chance to update their sites to fix any problems with
compatability, as well as a chance to play with some of the new
features.
I think this is
> That aside, now that QSRF is
> getting a real fleshing-out and all these reports are trickling in, I
> think it would be a bad idea to stamp a version right now until either
> someone can step up and fill Malcolm's shoes as a queryset maintainer,
> or he becomes available once again from
On Jun 8, 9:27 am, Wim Feijen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My vote is +1, because I think Django needs another stable release
> right now. Fortunately, the trunk is stable (thank you!). Rob says
> that it is good for a software project to have regular releases on a
> half-year basis and I totally
David Larlet wrote:
> This is not a secret that I'm interested in both Django and Semantic
> Web. I'm following discussion about Django+REST for more than two
> years and when I realize that newforms-admin branch will use class-
> based generic views [1], I decided that it's probably the righ
On Jun 8, 2008, at 4:27 AM, Wim Feijen wrote:
> Fortunately, the trunk is stable (thank you!).
I think what people are missing most here is that this statement is
moderately inaccurate. Since QSRF, there have been a significant
number of data-fetching related tickets that are relatively ea
Hello,
This is not a secret that I'm interested in both Django and Semantic
Web. I'm following discussion about Django+REST for more than two
years and when I realize that newforms-admin branch will use class-
based generic views [1], I decided that it's probably the right moment
to do some
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:07 AM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone have strong objections to doing this?
Sounds good to me.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers"
James Bennett wrote:
> If that means organizing a sprint or two on it
> and then doing a trunk merge to get more eyeballs on the code, then
> let's do that instead.
+1 for early merging. Merging qs-rf helped (forced :-) ) many people to
catch many bugs that won't ever be found on the branch due
Jacob, I am very glad this discussion is being held, and with such
good arguments.
My vote is +1, because I think Django needs another stable release
right now. Fortunately, the trunk is stable (thank you!). Rob says
that it is good for a software project to have regular releases on a
half-year b
For the record, I'm -1 on releasing 1.0 without NFA.
As I've discussed with Jacob and Adrian, GeoDjango will be merged with
trunk at some point in the future. In my opinion, there's nothing
preventing it from being included in the 1.0 release (I'm currently
addressing the biggest hurdle, documen
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just a quick procedural thing:
>
> The 0.96.2 tarball created for the recent security fix was generated
> from the 0.96 setup.py script, which gets you the Django source tree
> but misses things like the documentation fil
Just a quick procedural thing:
The 0.96.2 tarball created for the recent security fix was generated
from the 0.96 setup.py script, which gets you the Django source tree
but misses things like the documentation files that we distribute with
Django. This has caused a couple of issues with downstrea
22 matches
Mail list logo
