Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Any complete feature is potentially a candidate for
> v1.2 - as long as you can convince a core developer to look into the
> ticket.
This is what I'm trying to do, yes :-). The ticket is assigned to
Malcolm (and in fact it was created after we talked with him if such
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
wrote:
>
> Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
>> wrote:
>>> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
>>> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
>>
>> At firs
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
> wrote:
>> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
>> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
>
> At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
> wrote:
>> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
>> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
>
> At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance
Ivan Sagalaev wrote:
> This comment[1] in the ticket is a summary of what had changed. Thanks
> for looking!
Forgot to add... There's no docs & tests changes in the patch yet. I'll
add them after the decision if this looks good at all.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
wrote:
> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance :)
Jacob
--~--~-~--~
Hello everyone!
Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
This has started as a feature allowing to .read() directly from a
request object. However this has lead to a rather nice refactoring
removing a lo
