On 27 March 2012 03:01, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
>>
>> On 27 March 2012 02:44, Reinout van Rees wrote:
>> > On 26-03-12 18:13, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm also intrigued how you have a release tarball before you have
>>
I have reformated my proposal content on this group, any suggestion?
Abstract
---
Django currently assumes that an application will only ever be loaded
once, and that the name of that application will be determined solely
by the package name holding the models.py. A gread idea has b
On 27-03-12 02:47, James Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> Having a release before the tag? Sounds weird to me. Making a tag is
> integral to the actual release, right? Curious:-)
The tag and the release package are both just the same revision from
tru
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> On 27 March 2012 02:44, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> > On 26-03-12 18:13, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm also intrigued how you have a release tarball before you have
> >>tagged the release!
> >>
> >> It's magic :ş
> >
> >
On 27 March 2012 02:44, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> On 26-03-12 18:13, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm also intrigued how you have a release tarball before you have
>> tagged the release!
>>
>> It's magic :ş
>
>
> Well, it is the kind of magic that gets you burned at the stake for
> witc
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Reinout van Rees wrote:
> Having a release before the tag? Sounds weird to me. Making a tag is
> integral to the actual release, right? Curious :-)
The tag and the release package are both just the same revision from
trunk, so there is no requirement for the tag t
On 26-03-12 18:13, Florian Apolloner wrote:
I'm also intrigued how you have a release tarball before you have
tagged the release!
It's magic :ş
Well, it is the kind of magic that gets you burned at the stake for
witchcraft :-)
Having a release before the tag? Sounds weird to me. Ma
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> Once upon a time -- way back in Django's past -- we actually did have the
> tutorial code available as part of the Django repository. The problem was
> keeping the tutorial code and the tutorial itself in sync
On 27/03/2012, at 4:59 AM, Michael wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I do not know if this is the right place so sorry if not.
> I am new to Django for a few months. I love the official django tutorial and
> I went through it.
> However, I actually never kept the whole tutorial source code on my PC so
> after
Hi,
I do not know if this is the right place so sorry if not.
I am new to Django for a few months. I love the official django tutorial
and I went through it.
However, I actually never kept the whole tutorial source code on my PC so
after a while, when I wanted to look at a specific thing I saw
Abstract
---
Django currently assumes that an application will only ever be loaded
once, and that
the name of that application will be determined solely by the package
name holding
the models.py. A gread idea has been proposed as a GSOC idea in
2010[1] and continued
in 2011[2], which w
Hi Tom,
On Monday, March 26, 2012 5:59:45 PM UTC+2, Tom Evans wrote:
>
> Out of interest, is there any documentation of the release process?
>
Not sure if the process is documented in public somewhere, a quick search
suggests no -- might be wrong.
> I'm also intrigued how you have a release ta
>>good news: tag is there (https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/17810)
Thanks!
>>Out of curiosity, what's the benefit of using an svn tag over the released
tarball?
For my project I need to apply some patches to the django code (eg for
#8280). Applying a patch on svn checkout allows
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it's not tagged yet on purpose.
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
Out of interest, is there any documentation of the release process?
I'm also intrigued how you have a release tarball before you have
tagged the release!
Cheers
Tom
--
Hi,
good news: tag is there (https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/17810)
On Monday, March 26, 2012 6:05:47 AM UTC+2, Tai Lee wrote:
>
> How come? The release that can be downloaded from the site already must
> correspond to an SVN revision number, right? Why not tag it as such so that
> peo
I guess this would not be too different from how the `m2m_changed` signal
works. The arguments would (at a bare minimum) include the `sender`,
`action`, and `using`, then depending on the `action` other arguments may
be passed in.
I would imagine if this approach would be taken, migrating exist
I am working on fixing #14087. I think the biggest problem is that
django do not support PEP 302 importers. Also, because of this,
tickets are marked as won't fix or fixed by introducing much more
implementation detail. It is not hard to find many of them, #582 #596
#8238 #8280 #12206 #13587 #1671
On 03/26/2012 06:34 AM, Byron Ruth wrote:
Sure I guess you _could_ take a generic signals approach to handling
all modify operations, but for each operation context is important.
The state of the object(s) matters when performing operations. The
`pre_save` and `post_save` signals for example ha
18 matches
Mail list logo
