imo, the official documentation should not document bugs, and should
also not provide non-working examples. therefore either the bug should
be fixed immediately, or the example should be removed immediately (to
be re-instated when the bug is fixed). it is true that many bugs
remain in trunk for a
On 5 Jul., 09:41, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 00:39 -0700, jedie wrote:
> > The documentation philosophy is relevant for me: The documentation
> > should really never show non-working examples.
>
> Unsurprisingly,weare in100%agreement. So if the documentat
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:52 +0200, Nicola Larosa wrote:
> jedie wrote:
> > Sorry, you have misunderstood this. Thus I have not meant this. ;)
> >
> > Fixing the ticket #1015 is not important to me.
>
> Insisting on telling people what to do, and not really doing anything
> yourself, is obnoxious
jedie wrote:
> Sorry, you have misunderstood this. Thus I have not meant this. ;)
>
> Fixing the ticket #1015 is not important to me.
Insisting on telling people what to do, and not really doing anything
yourself, is obnoxious.
Please make a patch first, and then quibble, preferably in the tick
Malcolm Tredinnick skrev:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 00:39 -0700, jedie wrote:
>
>> The documentation philosophy is relevant for me: The documentation
>> should really never show non-working examples.
>>
>
> Unsurprisingly, we are in 100% agreement. So if the documentation and
> the code are
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 00:39 -0700, jedie wrote:
> On 4 Jul., 09:51, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:30 -0700, jedie wrote:
> > > "shortly"... But my "change docu" ticket is opened 2 weeks ago:
> > >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4649
> >
> > > The r
On 4 Jul., 09:51, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:30 -0700, jedie wrote:
> > "shortly"... But my "change docu" ticket is opened 2 weeks ago:
> >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4649
>
> > The real bug is 2 years old and last modified 2 weeks ago, too:
>
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 00:30 -0700, jedie wrote:
> On 23 Jun., 12:40, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Fortunately,it'sallincrediblymoot, since the real fix (in #1015) is
> > just about ready to go.Itwas being looked at again as a result of Gary
> > closing the ticket with a poin
On 23 Jun., 12:40, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Fortunately,it'sallincrediblymoot, since the real fix (in #1015) is
> just about ready to go.Itwas being looked at again as a result of Gary
> closing the ticket with a pointer to the real fix the first time, before
> this thread s
In this regard, I agree with Jedie. The documentation should really
never show non-working examples.
Aidas Bendoraitis aka Archatas
On 6/25/07, jedie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, i accepted: The documentation should not document bugs. This is
> the job for trac.
> But on the other side:
OK, i accepted: The documentation should not document bugs. This is
the job for trac.
But on the other side: The documentation should IMHO never have
example code that doesn't work.
In this specific instance, a remark would have been enough. e.g.:
"This example code doesn't work until #1015 is fix
On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 10:35 +, SmileyChris wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Documentation should be kept up to date even if there is a bug - it's
> > > easy to update it again when the main ticket is fixed.
> >
> > Strongly disagree, unless the
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Documentation should be kept up to date even if there is a bug - it's
> > easy to update it again when the main ticket is fixed.
>
> Strongly disagree, unless there's no forseeable way the bug can be
> fixed. All the incentive t
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 15:42 -0700, SmileyChris wrote:
> I should really reply here rather than in the ticket:
>
> In that ticket I kinda agree with anonymous (who I'm guessing was
> jedie). That ticket has a patch two months old, and since it's not
> that critical it could sit there for much long
I should really reply here rather than in the ticket:
In that ticket I kinda agree with anonymous (who I'm guessing was
jedie). That ticket has a patch two months old, and since it's not
that critical it could sit there for much longer. Well maybe not in
this case, now it has got some attention.
In the docu there ware two syntax for a "per-view cache":
"""
def my_cool_view(request):
# cool processing
slashdot_this = cache_page(slashdot_this, 60 * 15)
"""
or
"""
@cache_page(60 * 15)
def my_cool_view(request):
# cool processing
"""
see: http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/ca
16 matches
Mail list logo
