On Friday, October 23, 2009, James Bennett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>> How about using BitBucket? Does it have the same limitation? I see
>> there's already a Django mirror there:
>
> If anyone's interested, I can see about maintaining a copy pulling
> from
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> How about using BitBucket? Does it have the same limitation? I see
> there's already a Django mirror there:
If anyone's interested, I can see about maintaining a copy pulling
from any branches people are maintaining on bitbucket.
(and with
On Oct 22, 8:57 pm, mrts wrote:
> > Another benefit of a merge-queue branch is testing and verifying that
> > multiple patches play well together before actually hitting trunk.
> > For multiple big branches this is even more important.
>
> Currently blocking
> onhttp://support.github.com/discus
I found a way to make Django use multiple MySQL databases (on the same
server) with a single connection. After a search, i found that it had
already been discussed here in this message:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/05420313676f4693
To summarize, for tables in database
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Thomas Wanschik
wrote:
>
>> When a new QuerySet is instantiated (e.g. by calling
>> Model.objects.all()) it asks the backend for its Query class and then
>> creates an instance of that class. By default, this class is
>> sql.Query. Only the Oracle backend has its
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Phillip Temple
wrote:
>
> Two apps I would like to see in contrib are:
> mptt - this has been stable for a long time, integrates well into
> django, and is now a dependency for a few apps out there
> django-registration - rewritten to have pluggable work flow, th
http://code.google.com/p/live-android/
On 22 Okt., 13:35, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> this rather long mail contains a status report and instructions for
> contributors and implementation notes for Django core developers. If
> you only want to know the status you can stop after
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:20:10 +0800
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Exe wrote:
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> >> As a consequence of the proposed CSRF changes, we brought up
> >> wanting to add a shortcut like render_to_response that uses
> >> RequestContext
> >
> > I want
> Another benefit of a merge-queue branch is testing and verifying that
> multiple patches play well together before actually hitting trunk.
> For multiple big branches this is even more important.
Currently blocking on
http://support.github.com/discussions/feature-requests/560-two-forks-of-a-sin
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:30 PM, James Bennett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Phillip Temple
> wrote:
>> django-registration - rewritten to have pluggable work flow, this is a
>> fundamental feature of so many web sites
>
> I'm -1 on adding django-registration to contrib.
Agreed.
I would also consider a "last known good display name" field on the
MinimalUser table, so things like contrib.comments have something to
display as well as something to FK to.
I am interested in figuring this one out too. If you do fork django on
github, send me a pointer. I think it would take c
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Phillip Temple
wrote:
> django-registration - rewritten to have pluggable work flow, this is a
> fundamental feature of so many web sites
I'm -1 on adding django-registration to contrib.
--
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of c
On Thursday 22 October 2009 18:16:23 Philippe Raoult wrote:
> While we're talking about that, is there a reason the default
> manager isn't iterable (default mapping to .all()) ?
>
> This is not as trivial as it sounds, because it means template
> writers need to be aware of which member of the
On Oct 23, 6:16 am, Philippe Raoult
wrote:
> While we're talking about that, is there a reason the default manager
> isn't iterable (default mapping to .all()) ?
I've always thought this would be the logical thing to do, too.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received thi
While we're talking about that, is there a reason the default manager
isn't iterable (default mapping to .all()) ?
This is not as trivial as it sounds, because it means template writers
need to be aware of which member of the class are managers and which
are plain methods returning lists or query
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM, mrts wrote:
> A DVCS mm-tree
> --
>
> Quoting
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Morton_(computer_programmer)
>
> "He currently maintains a patchset known as the mm-tree,
> which contains not yet sufficiently tested patches that
> might later be ac
Two apps I would like to see in contrib are:
mptt - this has been stable for a long time, integrates well into
django, and is now a dependency for a few apps out there
django-registration - rewritten to have pluggable work flow, this is a
fundamental feature of so many web sites
Phillip.
--~--~-
On Thursday 22 October 2009 12:45:13 Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> Hi, just a small issue we always wondered about:
> Why doesn't Model provide a simple .all() function which just maps
> to self.objects.all() or self._default_manager.all()? Only few
> models provide multiple managers and it's anno
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I've started to look at the code, and have some other minor
> suggestions, but not significant things to do with approach, so I'll
> e-mail you personally with them at some point. On the basis of what
> I've seen so far, I'm willing to change
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>> now a little question:
>>
>> Some fields do type conversions. For example, TimeField converts
>> datetime objects into time objects.
>> App Engine doesn
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi again,
>> now a little question:
>>
>> Some fields do type conversions. For example, TimeField converts
>> datetime objects into time objects.
>> App Engine doesn
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
>
> Hi again,
> now a little question:
>
> Some fields do type conversions. For example, TimeField converts
> datetime objects into time objects.
> App Engine doesn't support time, but only datetime, so should we do
> such conversions at
Hi again,
now a little question:
Some fields do type conversions. For example, TimeField converts
datetime objects into time objects.
App Engine doesn't support time, but only datetime, so should we do
such conversions at the backend level or should we expect the field to
handle it (esp. if it al
Hi, just a small issue we always wondered about:
Why doesn't Model provide a simple .all() function which just maps to
self.objects.all() or self._default_manager.all()? Only few models
provide multiple managers and it's annoying to write .objects
everywhere. Is there a good reason to force people
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, mrts wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 3:36 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> As I said, I don't think I'm actually in a pjosition to suggest
> improvements to the workflow (being Nobody in that little story :)),
> but I'd be most pleased to do the following if core thinks
Hi everyone,
this rather long mail contains a status report and instructions for
contributors and implementation notes for Django core developers. If
you only want to know the status you can stop after the first section.
If you want to contribute I hope this provides a good starting point
into our
On Thursday 22 October 2009 04:41:03 Tobias McNulty wrote:
> In sticking with the staged deprecation policy, my vote would be:
> * use compat_add_message() internally in 1.2. There is no need to
> document this function as request.message_set.create will continue
> to work.
> * in 1.3, remove c
On Oct 22, 3:36 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On the other hand, saying "I am going to" is extraordinarily helpful.
> Saying "I already have" is even better. You don't need the core's
> blessing to do anything.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree and that was the point of my initial
message.
> Allow
28 matches
Mail list logo
