On Feb 7, 6:06 am, Justin Lilly wrote:
> I, for
> one, am willing to trust their judgement on someone who can lead this
> design-czar selection process, if Wilson doesn't come out and name his
> successor, as it were.
Something that hasn't been explicitly said yet:
I *don't* think that the de
Responses inline.
On Feb 7, 2:26 am, "j...@jeffcroft.com" wrote:
> 1. I wouldn't say "Wilson is out of the picture" without talking to
> him first.
Amen. I was under the impression that he's definitively out of the
picture. If he can be lured back to the community, awesome.
> 2. Is there value
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
>
>> 1. I'm not in favor of redesigns for redesigns' sake; yes, the current
>> admin UI has been around for a while, but if we rework it, we
>> should rework it because there are actual issues with it which need
>> to be resolved.
On 7.02.2010 3:06, Luke Plant wrote:
> 1. ForeignKey fields are different from simple values, in that they
> cause database lookups (the only logical exception being nullable
> foreign keys with a PK of None), so it's reasonable for them to behave
> differently.
Luke, I disagree with your expl
Just to hit on another point that might have been missed by Alex's -0/1 is
that we don't have someone to pick the positions.
When evaluating meritocracy, we've traditionally had someone who was able to
do the selection. Some number of Jacob / Simon / Adrian / other commiter has
effectively vetted
Hello everybody,
I would love to propose a new solution for ticket #10216 which is
currently a wontfix. Basically the problem is that with TEMPLATE_DEBUG
turned on, Django expects a certain protocol from exceptions catched
by the debugging system:
Either an exception does not have a .source attri
>
> I'm opposed to this. Firstly, unless I've missed something whoever
> gets the position, would definitionally get it before they've done
> anything! This is completely antithetical to the spirit of open
> source, meritocracy. Why should design be treated any different from
> other changes to
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:26 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> First off, I'm generally on board with everything you've said here.
> Only three points/questions I'd like to make:
>
> 1. I wouldn't say "Wilson is out of the picture" without talking to
> him first. I know he's a busy man and my impress
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:09 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> It's really hard to reconcile the open source mentality with the fact
> that design-by-commitee never works well. I'm not sure how to go about
> it, really. The "design czar" idea isn't perfect, but at least it's
> attempt to find a way t
> I'm opposed to this. Firstly, unless I've missed something whoever
gets the position, would definitionally get it before they've done
anything!
To respond to just this bit: you're right, but the reason whoever gets
this position has done nothing to date is that they weren't "allowed"
to. Wilson
I have trouble finding my stance on this one. In some respects, I want
design to be treated like everything else in Django. But I also know,
from experience, that design-by-commitee is almost never good design.
This, in my opinion, is why visual and interaction design has never
been a strength of o
On Saturday 06 February 2010 16:32:35 Luc Saffre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to understand why Luke closed my ticket #12801
> (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12801).
>
> Luke, don't get me wrong. Thank you for having taken the time to
> decide upon this and my other ticket #12708. I ag
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Idan Gazit wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Splitting off from
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/ca4f26d616921753,
> which has an exhaustive discussion about how django needs to treat
> design work.
>
> In the spirit of taking action,
On February 6, 2010, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > What is the timeframe for 1.2 final?
>
> Roughly, the start of March. RC1 is scheduled for March 2, final for a
> week later. These dates are slightly flexible - if we still have
> showstopper bugs on March 2, we won't cut a release - but that's
First off, I'm generally on board with everything you've said here.
Only three points/questions I'd like to make:
1. I wouldn't say "Wilson is out of the picture" without talking to
him first. I know he's a busy man and my impression is that he doesn't
have time for this right now, but I'm certain
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Yannick Gingras wrote:
>
> Greetings Django-devs,
> as stated previously, we organize a translation sprint in Montréal on
> 2010-02-15. What we have not decided yet is what version of the
> documentation we are going to translate. We want our effort to be
> inclu
> 1. I'm not in favor of redesigns for redesigns' sake; yes, the current
> admin UI has been around for a while, but if we rework it, we
> should rework it because there are actual issues with it which need
> to be resolved. A good first step would be to identify any such
> issues and
#12791 applies to the body itself #11924 only applies to the headers.
They look similar but do not apply to the same parts of the message.
These ticket could be combined into one as they both apply to
encoding.
#11924 is more a duplicate of #6918 that is assigned.
--
You received this message
A small addendum:
One way to think about the design czar is someone representing
designers' needs in Django proper. Arguably, we already had somebody
in this role -- Wilson -- and now we have a fantastic template
language and an admin which is still ahead of its time in many ways.
We wouldn't have
Hey folks,
Splitting off from
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/ca4f26d616921753,
which has an exhaustive discussion about how django needs to treat
design work.
In the spirit of taking action, I put together this list with Bryan
Veloso. My goal is to spark a
Greetings Django-devs,
as stated previously, we organize a translation sprint in Montréal on
2010-02-15. What we have not decided yet is what version of the
documentation we are going to translate. We want our effort to be
included in django-fr.org and they are using the 1.1.1 doc, stating
th
My thoughts, as concisely as I can express them:
1. I'm not in favor of redesigns for redesigns' sake; yes, the current
admin UI has been around for a while, but if we rework it, we
should rework it because there are actual issues with it which need
to be resolved. A good first step would
Hey folks,
Won't waste time echoing the sentiments above in many words. Contest
stupid. Ground-up rework in 2.0 (maybe). Refactor & clean up existing
stuff in the meantime. Design czar(s) needed to chaperone this work
into existence.
I don't think that I'm qualified to submit myself for a "djesig
Let me get straight to the point, since I seem to suffer from chronic
"tl;dr" syndrome as of late.
1) I'm all for a re-thinking of the admin, and I agree that a
rethinking would be better placed with a 2.0-release because of the
aforementioned backwards-compatabilitiy issues. Baby steps are better
I went ahead and replied to this on my blog[0]. I'll copy it here for
completeness.
[0]:
http://ericholscher.com/blog/2010/feb/6/role-designers-django-community/
There has been a recent discussion on the Django Development mailing list
about the role of designers in the Django community. I think
Awesome. Thanks, Alex!
On Feb 6, 11:08 am, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> > Let me also just say, on the topic of Grapelli: I think Grapelli is a
> > really great re-skinning of the current admin interface, with a few
> > IxD improvements. It's
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> Let me also just say, on the topic of Grapelli: I think Grapelli is a
> really great re-skinning of the current admin interface, with a few
> IxD improvements. It's really nicely done, and in my opinion is a
> significant improvement over
Nice, James. Thanks!
On Feb 5, 10:30 pm, James Bennett wrote:
> Tonight we've released Django 1.2 beta 1:
>
> * Blog entry:http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/feb/06/12-beta-1/
> * Release notes:http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.2-beta-1/
> * Checksums:http://media.djangoprojec
> That feeling is unfortunately, however I also don't know where it
> comes from. It seems to me the "It's Wilson's admin" thought process
> comes from the fact that no one else has volunteered/started to
> workon/proposed a new interface a new one, and apparently this is
> because of the percepti
Let me also just say, on the topic of Grapelli: I think Grapelli is a
really great re-skinning of the current admin interface, with a few
IxD improvements. It's really nicely done, and in my opinion is a
significant improvement over what we have now.
But If I ever were to put together a proposal f
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:38 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
>> None of Django's core developers are designers, nor can they necessarily
>> execute someone else's creative vision.
>
> I will not participate in any sort of "contest" because it devalues
> design, and I think you'll find that most seri
> None of Django's core developers are designers, nor can they necessarily
> execute someone else's creative vision.
I will not participate in any sort of "contest" because it devalues
design, and I think you'll find that most serious designers will say
the same thing. Good design is not a commod
I have now published my 3.x port on bitbucket, at
http://bitbucket.org/loewis/django-3k/
It can now convert and start the test suite, however, this doesn't
produce any results, yet.
Feel free to use the bitbucket issue tracker to report problems or
contribute changes.
Regards,
Martin
--
You r
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Giuseppe Ciotta wrote:
>> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12399
>>
>> It's a nasty bug which leads to a 100% cache misses situation on
>> memcached when using long keys timeouts.
>>
>> Do you thin
Hello,
I am trying to understand why Luke closed my ticket #12801
(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12801).
Luke, don't get me wrong. Thank you for having taken the time to decide
upon this and my other ticket #12708. I agreed with you for marking
#12708 as invalid, because I didn't understan
On 6 February 2010 15:38, patrickk wrote:
>
> let me add a note about the "contest": if it comes down to skinning
> the admin-interface, a contest is not needed from my point of view. if
> (one day), it´s easy to "skin" the admin-interface, different skins
> will evolve (e.g., grappelli). I think
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> * Do we need to do this in phases - e.g., phase one for design
> proposals, and then phase two for best execution of the design
> proposal we pick?
>
> * Who judges? I'm predisposed to say that the winner should be picked
> in the sam
jannis (leidel) asked me to join this thread in order to add some
comments.
we´ve been doing grappelli (http://code.google.com/p/django-grappelli/
wiki/screenshots) for a while now. grappelli initially should be a
"skin" for the admin-interface. while working on it, we´ve had issues
skinning the i
On Feb 6, 1:02 pm, Ivan Sagalaev wrote:
> Thank you for your efforts!
You're welcome. And the PEP 391 functionality is already in Python svn
trunk (r77969), so feel free to download it and try it out.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Vinay Sajip wrote:
Guido,
That's great - thanks very much! I'll get on with integrating the PEP
391 implementation into trunk right away, and it should be in good
time for 2.7/3.2.
Thank you for your efforts!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django
On Saturday 06 February 2010 09:07:33 j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> To expound, it seems like you guys are thinking of a re-skinning.
> I'm not talking about a re-skinning. I'm talking about a complete
> re- thinking of the admin interface. By 1.2? Not a chance. By 1.3?
> Maybe. But I wouldn't cou
Am 05.02.2010 um 12:03 schrieb Dave Jeffery:
> Sorry to completely hijack this thread but would django-mobileadmin be
> considered for inclusion to trunk (during the 1.3 timeline)? iPhones and
> other mobile devices are getting pretty prolific and I love having the mobile
> admin site available
To expound, it seems like you guys are thinking of a re-skinning. I'm
not talking about a re-skinning. I'm talking about a complete re-
thinking of the admin interface. By 1.2? Not a chance. By 1.3? Maybe.
But I wouldn't count on it. I'm talking about bringing the admin to
2010, just like you all b
We don't do a "contest" for any other code, and I'm not sure why we
would for design. Frankly, that seems ridiculous to me. I'm glad you
guys are receptive to change, but a contest? Seriously? What is this,
American Idol?
On Feb 5, 10:20 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Ru
> That seems reasonable to me, but I'll add the stipulation that any
> design proposal must include a commitment to do the implementation,
> and must include all of the admin's pages.
Why? Not all designers can do cross browser xhtml/css (html5?) or even
django's template language, let alone the a
45 matches
Mail list logo
