On Monday 13 March 2006 07:13, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> I'm catching up on more than a week's worth of unread mailing-list
> messages. Is this still an open issue?
I committed my changes, so no.
Luke
--
"Where a person wishes to attract, they should always be ignorant."
(Jane Austen)
Luke P
On 3/4/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would Adrian or Jacob or someone like to comment on the original usage
> of __import__ and whether this patch is OK? An alternative way to do
> the imports is this:
> __import__(app_name, '', '', ['models']).models
> and that also seems to w
On 3/5/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, with problems like stack limits I was encountering, you can't
> guarantee it will work for larger volumes of data, because it will
> depend on the size of 'many' in 'many-to-one', but for day-to-day usage
If you find another case that
On Saturday 04 March 2006 14:47, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> The unit tests all pass with this change. However, I don't have a
> readily available source of 2 interrelated objects to stress test
> the algorithm. Could you please check that this 1) actually fixes
> your problem, and 2) gives
On 3/4/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But your patch fixes things for me - thanks!
Good to hear. I've committed it to magic removal as r2487. Thanks for
your (and Malcolm's) help in tracking this one.
> I haven't been able to find a nice solution. You can't even do
> something like
On Saturday 04 March 2006 07:17, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> This becomes a Heisenbug because the hashcode given to dict keys (and
> thus the original order of dict.keys()) is runtime dependent. The
> more dependencies/discovered classes you have, the worse the problem
> gets (explaining Luke's
Resending this as a new thread, the old one was pages back in Google
groups, and it probably needs attention from someone like Adrian/Jacob.
It's another puzzler (and comes logically before the previous thread
about delete).
On Sunday 26 February 2006 03:15, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Inter
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 15:17 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 3/4/06, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK, it's weirder than you think, though.
>
> Oh.. I don't know... I think it's pretty weird :-)
>
> > I get the same failure whether
> > I run all the tests or only Lu
On 3/4/06, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, it's weirder than you think, though.
Oh.. I don't know... I think it's pretty weird :-)
> I get the same failure whether
> I run all the tests or only Luke's tests using postgreSQL (and
> everything passes with SQLite).
Thanks for
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 11:25 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 3/4/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Russell (I think this is your area),
> >
> > I found another bug in delete(). I eventually managed to get it down to
> > the attached example, i
On 3/4/06, Luke Plant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell (I think this is your area),
>
> I found another bug in delete(). I eventually managed to get it down to
> the attached example, in the same format as the existing model tests.
Thanks for narrowing this one down - I&#x
On Saturday 04 March 2006 02:16, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 02:04 +, Luke Plant wrote:
> > Russell (I think this is your area),
> >
> > I found another bug in delete(). I eventually managed to get it
> > down to the attached example, in the
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 02:04 +, Luke Plant wrote:
> Russell (I think this is your area),
>
> I found another bug in delete(). I eventually managed to get it down to
> the attached example, in the same format as the existing model tests.
That attachment came through all scramble
Russell (I think this is your area),
I found another bug in delete(). I eventually managed to get it down to
the attached example, in the same format as the existing model tests.
One thing that puzzles me is that in my live example (with the full
model, data etc), compare_models() definitely
14 matches
Mail list logo
