I guess at some point its just feature-clut. Its a use case we _could_
encompass, but would you really even find yourself using it?
I don't see the technical difference here--pre-syncdb, you either have
to 'wade' to the database or you have to 'wade' to this item in
settings.py. Its not as though
Wow, I read that section three times this morning (and who knows how
many times in the past), and I still managed to miss that about
wrapping fields inside of fieldsets in tuples. My apologies!
I'd almost say it could use a docs patch to make that feature more
obvious since it's now eluded several
Can you tell us what the difference to fieldsets would be (as ramiro
already pointed out:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.1/ref/contrib/admin/#django.contrib.admin.ModelAdmin.fieldsets)?
Cheers, Florian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django dev
Hey folks,
I was looking through the recent tickets and saw #13115 [1], which
looked interesting. It got closed by ramiro (whose judgment I normally
trust) as a "worksforme", but I don't think he quite got what the OP
wanted.
I thought I'd bring it up on here to see if it was worth reopening the
Fair enough. As Gabriel pointed out earlier, I didn't realize that I
could change those values by adding django.contrib.sites to my
INSTALLED_APPS. That's why I said there was no straightforward way of
configuring those values.
I wish Django had some sort of 'sample proposals' on their site. You
s
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:39 PM, aditya wrote:
> The trouble is, there is no straightforward way to configure the name
> and domain of a site.
Sure there is: create a Site object, or edit an existing one, setting
the values you want on it.
> Currently, Django uses "example.com" for both the doma
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> I'm not arguing that the proposal is inherently bad, just that it was
> being proposed without understanding the existing solution.
> Personally, I use a custom model that inherits from Site to manage my
> sites, so it's not like I'm thrill
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> I'm not arguing that the proposal is inherently bad, just that it was
> being proposed without understanding the existing solution.
That's not what I got from your harsh responses.
The existing "solution" is to modify the default Site cre
