Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Would it be too much to start thinking about marketing for the 1.0 release? By marketing, I mean, screencasts, t-shirts, coffee mugs. Possibly a not-for-profit entity to pipe whatever proceeds or donations through to help support Django coding, or have paid bounties, etc. IIRC, some of these thi

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

> What am I forgetting? This is a completely personal and probably selfish desire, but I'd love to see the comments system rewrite in there. It's been on that informal wiki-list ever since I started using Django. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message beca

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 8 Dec 2007, at 20:14, Kevin Menard wrote: > Shifting to a more personal stance, I never cared much for the term > "Web 2.0". It seems too gimmicky. That's largely the impression I > get with a Django 2.0 without a prior Django 1.0. The other problem with Django 2.0 is that Rails just relea

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007, at 8:54 PM, Simon Willison wrote: > > On Nov 30, 6:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > > I'm -0.5 on this (if that's possible). I understand the thinking > behind it, but "1.0" isn't an arbitrary version number - it

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 01:03 -0800, Antonio Cangiano wrote: > On Nov 30, 1:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > > Adrian, marketing matters. :) > How about releasing 1.0 now, 1.2 in a month or so, and then 2.0 when > all the features

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 1:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. Adrian, marketing matters. :) How about releasing 1.0 now, 1.2 in a month or so, and then 2.0 when all the features listed above will be implemented? Cheers, Antonio -- Antonio Cangiano h

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Am 30.11.2007 um 07:33 schrieb Adrian Holovaty: > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INSTALLED_APPS an instance, and each app an instance > * #5361

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 4, 2007 10:17 PM, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Selector[1], a raw WSGI middleware for url dispatching, uses something > almost exactly like this. Although, there are a few things we > obviously wouldn't want, it provides a decent starting point. I'd > suggest ignoring all the

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 4, 2007 10:31 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/4/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't have a suggestion for a replacement, and I don't think it needs to > > be on the 1.0 list (since it can be added without breaking backward > > compatibility), bu

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 12/4/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have a suggestion for a replacement, and I don't think it needs to > be on the 1.0 list (since it can be added without breaking backward > compatibility), but I think it would be a big plus. While I actually like the power and flexi

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

I would like to see a replacement for the regex scheme as well, but not because I am uncomfortable with regexes. I think the typical regex for a URL is noisy: it's hard to see the intent of the expression. Most URL regexes follow some very well-defined patterns, and we don't have a way to exp

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 4 Dec 2007, at 13:26, bobj wrote: > Simon - These are GREAT!!! Ideas. The regular expression based URL > dispatching replacement has been something I personally have been > thinking about for some time. I would be interested in helping with > this If you put together a proposal. One URL imp

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Simon - These are GREAT!!! Ideas. The regular expression based URL dispatching replacement has been something I personally have been thinking about for some time. I would be interested in helping with this If you put together a proposal. One URL implementation worth considering is "Routes" ( htt

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Don't overlook the marketing aspect. Trust disappears without visible progress. Visible progress comes from version numbers. The more often, the better. 0.96 has been out 9 months already. You mention an extra 8-9 months for 2.0/1.0 (from what I understand in another thread). Experience says it ge

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

I'm also -1 on the strange names -- especially something like "Paris 1945" :P On Dec 3, 11:51 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2007 9:52 AM, Panos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Having major releases include a nickname might be nice too (like > > Ubuntu & OS X). > >

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 3, 2007 9:52 AM, Panos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having major releases include a nickname might be nice too (like > Ubuntu & OS X). > > We could use Reinhardt's album titles, ie: > > "Django 2.0 - Paris 1945", "I'm using the Paris 1945 version", etc. A vehement "no, no, no." Nicknames l

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 3, 2007 2:26 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got some half-assed code for this lying around actually; I'd > envisioned something like 'django.views.generic.wsgi.wsgi_application' > being a way to simply drop any WSGI application into a Django URLConf. I don't know much

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 12/3/07, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to see the distance between a Django application (or a > Django view) and WSGI as small as possible. Imagine if you could drop > a Django view in to any WSGI container just by applying a WSGI-to- > Django-view wrapper of some sort. O

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 11:03 -0800, David Cramer wrote: > I just want to bring this up again, because Model Inheritance is a > HUGE thing... > > I have not seen any final discussion on how it's going to work (http:// > code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ModelInheritance). Last I heard it was > still up

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

I just want to bring this up again, because Model Inheritance is a HUGE thing... I have not seen any final discussion on how it's going to work (http:// code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ModelInheritance). Last I heard it was still up in the air. If there are features that are unsure of, I don't see ho

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 3 Dec 2007, at 08:15, James Bennett wrote: > At that point I'd wonder why Django had any machinery for > request/response processing, middleware, etc., given that what you're > describing is more neatly handled by just writing a WSGI application > and taking advantage of the existing tools.

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

For some unknown reason I am in love with this suggestion. On Dec 3, 9:52 am, Panos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having major releases include a nickname might be nice too (like > Ubuntu & OS X). > > We could use Reinhardt's album titles, ie: > > "Django 2.0 - Paris 1945", "I'm using the Paris 19

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 12/3/07, Thomas Güttler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Join both into one: > http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/ > http://www.djangobook.com/ This won't happen, for a bunch of reasons including the fact that the licenses aren't compatible and the release schedules are drastically differe

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Having major releases include a nickname might be nice too (like Ubuntu & OS X). We could use Reinhardt's album titles, ie: "Django 2.0 - Paris 1945", "I'm using the Paris 1945 version", etc. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscrib

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

> And, finally, a bit of a controversial statement, but... > > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > +0 from me. I've never set much store by version numbers, but I suppose 2.0 will suggest a bigger leap forward to most people - and there's a lot of good stuff on that list. Nick --~--~-

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 3:33 PM, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and > let's release it. +1 > I'll start with a proposed list, which no doubt has omissions. But > first, here's a proposal for how to handle this: ... > 2. W

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 11/30/07, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's probably too big a feature to start talking about now, but I'd be > really interested in seeing Django applications (in particular the > URLconf part) unified with the concept of a Django view, so a Django > application is a callable th

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

> Without further ado, here's my list: > ... My whish: Use DRY (Don't repeat yourself) for the documentation: Join both into one: http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/ http://www.djangobook.com/ And make the documentation (incl. API doc) available trough the development server. Either in

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Le 30 nov. 07 à 07:33, Adrian Holovaty a écrit : > > Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and > let's release it. Just great. > > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level val

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Simon Willison wrote: > I'd love to have a simpler alternative to the regexp method that is > more friendly for developers who haven't fully grokked regular > expression syntax yet. while i agree that simplifying things is always a good idea, i think that "developers who haven't fully grokked reg

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 29, 10:33 pm, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INS

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

+1. I agree with Simon's reasoning. Simon Willison wrote: > On Nov 30, 6:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > > I'm -0.5 on this (if that's possible). I understand the thinking > behind it, but "1.0" isn't an arbitrary version number

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 1, 5:24 am, "Karen Tracey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the issue of what to call 1.0, I like Max Battcher's idea of adopting an > Ubuntu-like date-based version. Puts some useful information (how old is > it?) into the release name and avoids preconceived notions of > stability/complet

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 11:38 pm, Brian Rosner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 30, 7:27 pm, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > > Without further ado, here's my list: > > > > * newforms-admin > > > * queryset-refactor > > > * django.newforms becomes django.forms >

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 7:27 pm, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > Without further ado, here's my list: > > > * newforms-admin > > * queryset-refactor > > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > > * Model-level validation > > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 6:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What am I forgetting? It's probably too big a feature to start talking about now, but I'd be really interested in seeing Django applications (in particular the URLconf part) unified with the concept of a Django view, so a Django a

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Adrian Holovaty wrote: > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INSTALLED_APPS an instance, and each app an ins

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 00:33 -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > (I've been saving this e-mail since the last sprint. Given that we're > sprinting again this weekend, I figured it was about time to get this > conversation started.) > > Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 6:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. I'm -0.5 on this (if that's possible). I understand the thinking behind it, but "1.0" isn't an arbitrary version number - it has a very specific meaning: "the APIs are frozen, it's safe to

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Dec 1, 12:37 am, "Patryk Zawadzki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/11/30, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:33:31AM -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > > * #285 -- WSGI SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO stuff > > > Aren't there SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO/etc. problems with mo

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Is this set for 2009? ;) About subclassing, what was agreed upon? I'm going to rip my hair out if it does OneToOne relations and strange db queries :P I think the major features listed here are good -- qsrf is the biggest one I want in.. come on .98? :) On Nov 30, 9:49 am, "Bryan L. Fordham" <[

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

twas a joke. i don't think any of the authors of any of the evolution mechanisms believe their implementations ready to be included into v1.0. (my own included :) Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 11:56 AM, Derek Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> what, no schema evolution? =p >

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

> Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and > let's release it. Is it the consensus that multi-database isn't ready enough to be included? If MDB is likely to have some backwards incompatible changes then maybe it's worth considering, otherwise it doesn't really look like

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 11:56 AM, Derek Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > what, no schema evolution? =p Schema evolution falls squarely in the category of "inessential for this version, but can always be added in a subsequent incremental version without breaking backwards compatibility." Adrian --

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

what, no schema evolution? =p (ducks for cover behind fire-retardant suit ;) Adrian Holovaty wrote: > (I've been saving this e-mail since the last sprint. Given that we're > sprinting again this weekend, I figured it was about time to get this > conversation started.) > > Let's get a definiti

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 7:33 am, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, finally, a bit of a controversial statement, but... > > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. Well, there are lots of precedents. Emacs went from 1.12 to 13.0 at some point, so the jump from 0.96 to 2.0 does not seem tha

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

> > On the issue of what to call 1.0, I like Max Battcher's idea of > adopting an Ubuntu-like date-based version. Puts some useful > information (how old is it?) into the release name and avoids > preconceived notions of stability/completeness associated with .0 > releases. I'm +1 on that as

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 11/30/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > We're currently leaning more towards Joseph Kocherhans' replacement for > form_for_* (not sure how backwards compatible it will end up) and whilst > "nice to have", I don't see this as show stopper stuff for 1.0. > > Except I

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

2007/11/30, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:46 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > > For my needs: > > > > * Extendable results of form_for_{instance,model} (sometimes you just > > need to override one field in a large form) > > * Sortable fields on forms extending o

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:46 +0100, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > 2007/11/30, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Without further ado, here's my list: > > > > * newforms-admin > > * queryset-refactor > > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > > * Model-level validation > > * Change django.templa

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

2007/11/30, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INSTALLED_APPS an inst

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 11/30/07, Etienne Robillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it would be great if Django-1.0 (and subsequent releases) be > backward-compatible with Django-0.96... For the most part, it will be; most of the post-0.96 changes have been/will be "under the hood." You can see the list of chang

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > > Adrian, people will rip you apart for omitting streamed file upload :-). >Though I believe it will require a lot of effort since the main > ticket on the subject (#2070) looks scary. Ohh yeah, that's one feature I'd love to see go in. An awful lot of work has gon

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Friday 30 November 2007 06:33:31 Adrian Holovaty wrote: > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INSTALLED_A

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Hi, On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 08:12:14AM -0600, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 08:33 -0500, Forest Bond wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:33:31AM -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > > * #285 -- WSGI SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO stuff > > > > Aren't there SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO/etc.

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Etienne Robillard wrote: > > > On Nov 30, 2007 2:27 AM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 AM, jj <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 2:27 AM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 AM, jj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial, but > > would clearly indicate that 0.96 is a version one can already trust. > > Isn't the Web site already

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 30-Nov-07, at 6:14 PM, Deryck Hodge wrote: > +1 > > It's not an unprecedented idea across OSS projects. We jumped from > samba 3.0.14 to 3.0.20 when we had a slew of new changes between > releases. Granted those are dot releases, but the idea is the same. and postgres jumped from 7.4.x to

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 02:27 -0500, Max Battcher wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 AM, jj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial, but > > would clearly indicate that 0.96 is a version one can already trust. > > Isn't the Web site already advocating

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 08:33 -0500, Forest Bond wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:33:31AM -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > * #285 -- WSGI SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO stuff > > Aren't there SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO/etc. problems with mod_python, too? It'd > be > nice if django 1.0-based apps could

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

2007/11/30, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:33:31AM -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > * #285 -- WSGI SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO stuff > > Aren't there SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO/etc. problems with mod_python, too? It'd > be > nice if django 1.0-based apps could be moved t

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:33:31AM -0600, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > * #285 -- WSGI SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO stuff Aren't there SCRIPT_NAME/PATH_INFO/etc. problems with mod_python, too? It'd be nice if django 1.0-based apps could be moved to different relative mount points without changing .py fil

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Sorry for the shameless messing in, but... if you want a release to be considered rock-stable and proven from the beginning,.. never name it 2.0. Neither 1.0. Nor any *.0. "Anything-dot-zero" obviously stands for "just released after a rush to fit into the deadline" and implies "let's wait for oth

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 12:33 AM, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, finally, a bit of a controversial statement, but... > > I think we ought to call the release 2.0. > +1 It's not an unprecedented idea across OSS projects. We jumped from samba 3.0.14 to 3.0.20 when we had a slew of new

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 30 Nov 2007, at 6:33 am, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > My second reason for choosing 2.0 is, shall we say, less wholesome. > After having endured a 2.5+ year deluge of "When is 1.0 coming out?" > blog entries, comments, e-mails and in-person confrontations from > people all around the world, I wou

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Adrian Holovaty wrote: > (I've been saving this e-mail since the last sprint. Given that we're > sprinting again this weekend, I figured it was about time to get this > conversation started.) > > Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and > let's release it. > > I'll start

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On Nov 30, 2007 2:18 AM, jj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial, but > would clearly indicate that 0.96 is a version one can already trust. > Isn't the Web site already advocating 0.96 that way? That might be a good idea... backport any rema

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

As a user having based some key internal applications on 0.96, which is solid enough, and not being likely to move to 2.0 in the near future, I'd say yes, go ahead, call it 2.0 AND move 0.96 to 1.0 status. This might sound somewhat artificial, but would clearly indicate that 0.96 is a version on

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

On 11/30/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and > let's release it. Sounds great to me :) > What am I forgetting? I'd add model subclassing to the list, if only because it feels as if the API has been mostly agreed upo

Re: Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

Adrian Holovaty wrote: > Without further ado, here's my list: > > * newforms-admin > * queryset-refactor > * django.newforms becomes django.forms > * Model-level validation > * Change django.templatetags not to use __path__ hacking > * #3591 -- Make INSTALLED_APPS an instance, and each app an ins

Django 1.0 features -- the definitive list

(I've been saving this e-mail since the last sprint. Given that we're sprinting again this weekend, I figured it was about time to get this conversation started.) Let's get a definitive list of features we want in Django 1.0, and let's release it. I'll start with a proposed list, which no doubt