On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Michael Elsdörfer wrote:
> $ pip install django==1.1
If you mean "The most recent point release in the 1.1 family", then
that is "Django>1.1,<1.2"*.
If you mean 1.1.1, then that is "Django==1.1.1"
Cheers
Tom
* If you ar
The point is that you should be using 1.1.4, the latest release in the 1.1
line, and not 1.1.
Jacob
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, donarb wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:54:10 AM UTC-8, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly against showing non-supported versions on PYPI
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:54:10 AM UTC-8, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
> I am strongly against showing non-supported versions on PYPI, I also don't
> see why you'd need 1.1 for CI tests if you don't use it (an nobody should)
>
I disagree. I have a client who is currently running a site wit
On Friday, December 14, 2012 9:01:27 PM UTC+1, Michael Elsdörfer wrote:
>
> I'm only using Django 1.1 as part of CI tests, and they have started
> failing recently because of this, so I'd be happy to see it fixed.
>
I am strongly against showing non-supported versions on P
I'm only using Django 1.1 as part of CI tests, and they have started
failing recently because of this, so I'd be happy to see it fixed.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
wrote:
>
> Despite not being listed on PyPi, installing Django 1.1 works if you do
> this:
>
> pip install 'Django<1.2'
>
>
>
> ---
> Will Van Wazer
> The Washington Post
> (202) 334-9967 (w)
> (703) 785-1448 (c)
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec
Despite not being listed on PyPi, installing Django 1.1 works if you do
this:
pip install 'Django<1.2'
---
Will Van Wazer
The Washington Post
(202) 334-9967 (w)
(703) 785-1448 (c)
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I'm not sure why it
uld really upgrade as soon as possible.
Jacob
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Michael Elsdörfer wrote:
> $ pip install django==1.1
> Downloading/unpacking django==1.1
> Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement django==1.1
> (from versions: )
> No distributions matchi
$ pip install django==1.1
Downloading/unpacking django==1.1
Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement django==1.1 (from
versions: )
No distributions matching the version for django==1.1
This was working perfectly well not so long ago. I notice 1.1 isn't listed
on PyPI e
Sure,
The ticket: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13640#preview
Greetings,
Lukasz
On May 25, 2:49 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:06 PM, naos wrote:
> > I was migrating some django project recently from django 1.0.4 to 1.2.
> > In Django 1.2/1.1 I found that if m
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:06 PM, naos wrote:
> I was migrating some django project recently from django 1.0.4 to 1.2.
> In Django 1.2/1.1 I found that if model have 'evaluate' attribute then
> one will get exception in admin edit page for that model if the page
> contains inline forms with relate
Hi,
I was migrating some django project recently from django 1.0.4 to 1.2.
In Django 1.2/1.1 I found that if model have 'evaluate' attribute then
one will get exception in admin edit page for that model if the page
contains inline forms with related models:
Exception Value: 'Shipper' object has
Bah! Yes, just like that.
However, it would be nice to release a 1.1.2 containing this for those
who use released versions as opposed to svn branches before 1.2 hits.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, s
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:34 AM, SmileyChris wrote:
> I was thinking that it would help third-party apps to be able to work
> across both 1.1 and 1.2 installations without workarounds if the 1.1
> branch had a csrf_token tag, just to stop templates choking with a
> "Invalid block tag: 'csrf_token'
I was thinking that it would help third-party apps to be able to work
across both 1.1 and 1.2 installations without workarounds if the 1.1
branch had a csrf_token tag, just to stop templates choking with a
"Invalid block tag: 'csrf_token'" message.
Does this fit within the policy for supporting ol
>
> On Oct 22, 9:49 am, Tarun Pasrija wrote:
>
>> IBM_DB_DJANGO-0.1.4
>> ---IBM_DB_DJANGOadaptor enables access to
>> IBM databases from Django
>> applicationshttp://www.djangoproject.com/. The adaptor is developed
>> and maintained by IBM.
>>
>&
jangoproject.com/. The adaptor is developed
> and maintained by IBM.
>
> What's New?
>
> We are pleased to announce the release ofibm_db_django-0.1.4 to
> support Django 1.1 and 1.0.x. We have kept the backward compatibility
> so that users who have not mig
se of ibm_db_django-0.1.4 to
support Django 1.1 and 1.0.x. We have kept the backward compatibility
so that users who have not migrated from 1.0.x to 1.1 can still use
the same adaptor.
Note:- Updation from from ibm_db_django-0.1.0 to ibm_db_django-
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 04:40 -0700, klas.hagg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> How come the new regular expression allows TLDs to end with a '.'
> character? For example 'n...@domain.com.' (note the period at the end)
> is regarded as a valid email address.
Perhaps because it is a valid domain name?
http:
How come the new regular expression allows TLDs to end with a '.'
character? For example 'n...@domain.com.' (note the period at the end)
is regarded as a valid email address.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Today the Django project is issuing a set of releases to remedy a security
issue. This issue was disclosed publicly by a third party on a high-traffic
mailing list, and attempts have been made to exploit it against live Django
installations; as such, we are bypassing our normal policy for security
se of ibm_db_django-0.1.2 to
support Django 1.1 and 1.0.x. We have kept the backward compatibility
so that users who have not migrated from 1.0.x to 1.1 can still use
the same adaptor.
Note:- Updation from from ibm_db_django-0.1.0 to ibm_db_django-
Tonight we're extremely proud to announce the release of Django 1.1,
the latest major milestone in Django's development.
To learn about the new release:
* Blog post: http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2009/jul/29/1-point-1/
* Release notes: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/re
uff in there.
>
> Thanks again,
> Michael
>
> 2009/7/21 Russell Keith-Magee
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Kerrin
>> wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I am working on a project that is currently running Django 1.1Beta from
&g
Go Django! Thanks to everybody and specially developers!
Dhruv Adhia
http://thirdimension.com
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:35 PM, James Bennett wrote:
>
> Hi folks! Tonight we've pushed out the Django 1.1 release candidate,
> which is hopefully the last stepping-stone to the fin
is currently running Django 1.1Beta from
> > March 23rd.
> > I am enquiring about the road map for the Django 1.1 release as I have
> not
> > seen much talk on the mailing list (I don't pay much attention to my IRC
> > client so apologies if I miss discussions t
Hi folks! Tonight we've pushed out the Django 1.1 release candidate,
which is hopefully the last stepping-stone to the final 1.1 release.
If you'd like to try it out, here's where you'll want to look:
* Download instructions: http://www.djangoproject.com/download/
*
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Kerrin wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am working on a project that is currently running Django 1.1Beta from
> March 23rd.
> I am enquiring about the road map for the Django 1.1 release as I have not
> seen much talk on the mailing list (I don&#x
ning Django 1.1Beta from
> March 23rd.
>
> I am enquiring about the road map for the Django 1.1 release as I have not
> seen much talk on the mailing list (I don't pay much attention to my IRC
> client so apologies if I miss discussions there).
>
> The last I he
Hi All,
I am working on a project that is currently running Django 1.1Beta from
March 23rd.
I am enquiring about the road map for the Django 1.1 release as I have not
seen much talk on the mailing list (I don't pay much attention to my IRC
client so apologies if I miss discussions there).
2009/5/7 Jacob Kaplan-Moss
>
> Now, we can't ship with anything that actually causes data loss,
>
i know you asked for reducing the number of tickets for 1.1, but i think one
should actually be added:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6191
this does not only cause data loss, but is causes d
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
wrote:
> Ugh, I really hate not being able to just assign files to fields. It
> just feels hacky and wrong to call instance.file_field.save(). It'll
> also break a bunch of code folks have written over the last few
> months. I know, no backwards-c
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I'm hard at work punting tickets out of the 1.1 milestone. It's tough
> to do, but this is what time-based releases mean: sometimes you have
> to ship with known issues.
Update: I've pushed/closed all the issues I plan to. We're now at
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Marty Alchin wrote:
> While I still think that's a valuable feature, and will likely be
> required in order to complete Honza's model validation work for GSOC,
> it's really a new feature that has so far caused far more bugs than
> it's worth. I'd like to recommend
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Once this is done we'll be down to blockers for 1.1; many of us at the
> sprint are focusing on these. More help will be appreciated!
I just wanted to add a note here that may have some impact on which
tickets get punted vs. fixed in 1.1
Hi folks --
The EuroDjangoCon sprints have started, and we're hacking hard to get
1.1 out the door. Here's the plan:
I'm hard at work punting tickets out of the 1.1 milestone. It's tough
to do, but this is what time-based releases mean: sometimes you have
to ship with known issues.
Now, we can'
009 9:20 PM, Tarun Pasrija wrote:
>
> > I recently checked the schedule for Django 1.1 final release and the
> > website says April 13th.
>
> >http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap.
>
> > Are there any updates about the change in schedule and when i
On 5/5/2009 9:20 PM, Tarun Pasrija wrote:
> I recently checked the schedule for Django 1.1 final release and the
> website says April 13th.
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap.
>
> Are there any updates about the change in schedule and when is the
&
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Tarun Pasrija wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I recently checked the schedule for Django 1.1 final release and the
> website says April 13th.
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap.
>
> Are there any updates about the change
Hi All
I recently checked the schedule for Django 1.1 final release and the
website says April 13th.
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap.
Are there any updates about the change in schedule and when is the
final going to be released?
Thanks and Regards
Tarun Pasrija
Hi all --
Tonight we've released Django 1.1 beta 1, the second in a series of
alpha and beta preview packages running up to the final Django 1.1
release, due mid-April. As always, alpha and beta packages are *not*
for production use, but if you'd like to try out the new features
Hi all --
Tonight we've released Django 1.1 beta 1, the second in a series of
alpha and beta preview packages running up to the final Django 1.1
release, due mid-April. As always, alpha and beta packages are *not*
for production use, but if you'd like to try out the new features
> GIS is a bit of a special case; Justin Bronn is the maintainer there,
> and he and the rest of the GeoDjango contributors develop somewhat
> independently of the rest of Django.
>
> That said, they don't get any special exemptions in terms of timeline,
> so GeoDjango feature freeze is this week
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Antoni Aloy wrote:
>
> 2009/3/18 Jacob Kaplan-Moss :
> >
> > Hi folks --
> >
> > Quick reminder that Django 1.1 beta is due to drop Friday. This means
> > feature freeze -- any feature additions not completed by the beta
2009/3/18 Jacob Kaplan-Moss :
>
> Hi folks --
>
> Quick reminder that Django 1.1 beta is due to drop Friday. This means
> feature freeze -- any feature additions not completed by the beta
> timeline won't make it into 1.1. Realistically that means that any
> feature a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
wrote:
...
>
> /me looks meaningfully at Justin.
FWIW, I've been a terrible contributor on GIS. All praise to Justin's
great work.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> One trend I noticed was that there were quite a few GIS tickets that
> aren't really in that grey area at all. Without a champion, they seem
> most likely to miss 1.1 (assuming contrib apps are subject to the same
> strict definition of "bug" a
On Mar 19, 4:59 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> > Digging through the (huge) 1.1 milestone list a bit, the following
> > seem to be closer to improvements than bugs (IMO). If you have any
> > favorites in here, they should probably be looked
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> Digging through the (huge) 1.1 milestone list a bit, the following
> seem to be closer to improvements than bugs (IMO). If you have any
> favorites in here, they should probably be looked at for last-minute
> additions to 1.1 beta, or they may
Digging through the (huge) 1.1 milestone list a bit, the following
seem to be closer to improvements than bugs (IMO). If you have any
favorites in here, they should probably be looked at for last-minute
additions to 1.1 beta, or they may be in danger of missing 1.1
entirely:
http://code.djangopro
Hi folks --
Quick reminder that Django 1.1 beta is due to drop Friday. This means
feature freeze -- any feature additions not completed by the beta
timeline won't make it into 1.1. Realistically that means that any
feature addition not already "close" to done should probably be
James Bennett wrote:
> if you'd like to try out the new features or go bug-hunting
> in a safe environment, feel free to take it for a sping.
Django-1.1-alpha-1.tar.gz reports:
^^^
$ python -c "import django; print django.VERSION"
(1, 0, 2, 'final&#x
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Django-1.1-alpha-1.tar.gz reports:
>^^^
>
> $ python -c "import django; print django.VERSION"
> (1, 0, 2, 'final', 0)
>
> Deliberate?
Ignore this; PEBCAK.
Regards,
--
Chris Lamb, UK
As we run up to Django 1.1 (due in April), we've started the process
of alpha and beta preview packages with Django 1.1 alpha 1, released
tonight. As always, alpha and beta packages are *not* for production
use, but if you'd like to try out the new features or go bug-hunting
in a safe e
On Feb 10, 1:43 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> Ignoring portions of a URL sounds pretty broken. Our goal isn't to be
> like other frameworks. It's to behave correctly, in accordance with best
> practices for things like URL construction and consumption. I would be a
> little unhappy with 'igno
On Feb 10, 5:43 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> Ignoring portions of a URL sounds pretty broken. Our goal isn't to be
> like other frameworks. It's to behave correctly, in accordance with best
> practices for things like URL construction and consumption. I would be a
> little unhappy with 'ignori
On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 10:23 -0800, Ben Gerdemann wrote:
> This seems kind of
> ugly, but I'll bet there are many frameworks out there that simply
> ignore unknown parameters. Thoughts?
Ignoring portions of a URL sounds pretty broken. Our goal isn't to be
like other frameworks. It's to behave cor
On Feb 8, 2:15 pm, Karen Tracey wrote:
> I don't have time to devote to this right now, but I'd suggest taking a look
> at the svn history of the tests that check for the ?e=1 redirect. I have a
> vague recollection that it/they may be there as a result of a problem where
> incorrect lookup par
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Ben Gerdemann wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 12:35 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ben Gerdemann wrote:
> >
> > A couple things, first the patch still has a pair of TODO comments, so
> > either those comments are no longer applicable, or what th
On Feb 7, 12:35 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ben Gerdemann wrote:
>
> A couple things, first the patch still has a pair of TODO comments, so
> either those comments are no longer applicable, or what they refer to should
> be fixed. Secondly, it needs docs and tests.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Ben Gerdemann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to ask what the status of ticked #5833
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5833
> is. I see that it's listed as a "maybe" feature for 1.1. The patch is
> marked "needs improvement," but it's not clear to me from the b
Hello,
I'd like to ask what the status of ticked #5833
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5833
is. I see that it's listed as a "maybe" feature for 1.1. The patch is
marked "needs improvement," but it's not clear to me from the bug
discussion what improvement is being requested. I (gerdemb) hav
On Nov 27, 2:13 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Solaris: I'm unable to find information detailing which Python
> version ships with various releases of Solaris and OpenSolaris. If
> anyone has that information, please post it in a reply.
Solaris versions prior to 10 did
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 7:20 AM, Tim Chase
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm somewhere between -0 and -1 on the voting scale regarding
> forced/long-range Python-version deprecation. But when a version
> becomes sufficiently dead weight, slowing down Django's progress
> like 2.3 seems to be doi
On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
>
> However, I haven't seen any/much expression of *want* that 2.4 be
> dropped any time in the near future (and there are a much larger
> number of 2.4 deployments). I wouldn't schedule that "2.4 will
> be dropped in Django 1.3" timetable, but rathe
James Bennett wrote:
> Apologies for the length of this email,
Thanks, James, for your post-doctoral dissertation on the History
and Cumulative Predicted Future of Python Versions and Their
Interrelations With the Django Development Process. :-) (joking
aside, it was an appreciated and well-r
Le 27 nov. 08 à 02:39, Eduardo O. Padoan a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks --
>>
>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
>> Discuss.
>>
&
sibly fairly soon, when these
folks will want to "get off the boat" of their own accord. And so we
probably don't need to worry too much about it right now.
A schedule for dropping Python 2.x support
==
The only thing left, then, is to decide on a
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Hi folks --
> >
> > > > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> Jacob
+1 -- because reusable apps developers could all close those
py2.3-related bugs as wo
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 01:42 -0800, mrts wrote:
[...]
> * Python 2.3 is officially not supported by Python developers since
> 2.3.5; it
>doesn't even receive security patches -- so, effectively, everybody
> should
>avoid using it (the same is true for 2.4, 2.4.5 is supposedly the
> last r
> > wrote:
> >> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
> >> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
> >> our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official 3.0 support for 1.1.
>
> > I
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:23 AM, varikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:16 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
>> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0
On Nov 25, 7:16 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
> our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official 3.0
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 01:16:00 Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version
> and we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support
> timeline, since our timeframe doesn't really encourage any official
> 3.0 support
gt; > Hi folks --
>
> > > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> > I'm going to be the stick in the mud and say -0.
>
> > I don't have any particular love of or need for Python 2.3, but it has
> > taken us a lot o
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, even saying Django 1.1 is the last 2.3-compatible version and
> we drop it afterwards gives us a reasonable 3.0 support timeline, since
> our timeframe doesn't really encourage a
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:43 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi folks --
>
> > > I&#x
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Yes please.
Maybe put up a poll, prominently, on the djangoproject.com homepage?
Maybe make a timeline? Drop 2.3-support by da
On Nov 26, 11:43 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks --
>
> > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Dis
On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 09:43 +0900, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks --
> >
> > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the GIS stuff is bound to 2.4+, but other than this, is there
> any particularly compelling reason to drop 2.3 support other than the
> annoyance factor for 1.1? I'm just not convinced that the first minor
> r
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
I'm going to be the stick in the mud and say -0.
I don't have any particular love of or need
+1 For me, too.
If people want to use the cutting-edge Django release then they can at
least update Python to 2.4 (which is now 4 years old anyway).
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers"
+1 for me too
2.4 is still quite conservative :)
The actual Django stable version is good enought to let people
developing in until the decide/can move to a new version
--
Antoni Aloy López
Blog: http://trespams.com
Site: http://apsl.net
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Yo
+1. Eliminates a ton of compatibility code, e.g., no more carrying
around a three thousand line Decimal implementation.
-Justin
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to t
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
> Discuss.
+0.5 (not withstanding any panic'ed folks saying "I need 2.3!",
consider it a +1)
I think Debian Stable has moved to 2.4. All the servers that I
touch currently with 2.3 on them now a
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1.
+1, every single reason that has been stated convinces me of dropping
support for 2.3.
Cheers,
Jannis
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
t 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>>>>
>>> Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
>>>
>> ... and generator expression
t;> Hi folks --
>>
>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> +1. This needs to happen. Python 2.3 is getting pretty old and I would
> imagine that most people have at least 2.4 available to them or they
> can hang out in
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
+1. This needs to happen. Python 2.3 is getting pretty old and I would
imagine that most people have at
t; >> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> > Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
>
> ... and generator expressions, too!
>
> +1
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mess
Ludvig Ericson wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2008, at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
... and generator e
>
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
>
> Jacob
>
> >
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To po
On Nov 25, 2008, at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Oh god please, YES! Gimme my decorator syntax sugar, oh yeah.
- Ludvig.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
Hi folks --
I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send
On Nov 17, 10:31 am, Jannis Leidel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Importing in the settings.py is effectively not required by any other
> part of Django.
Is importing in settings.py regarded generally as bad practice? If so,
I wasn't aware of this.
> What do you mean by "which you don't contro
On Nov 17, 11:20 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> The InstalledAppsRevision wiki page. That was produced after the PyCon
> sprint. Since that involved a bunch of people, a number of them
> maintainers, I tend to view it as fairly canonical as to what is wanted
> in the feat
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 02:24 -0800, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 17, 1:13 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > My -1 is because of basically the same thing Jannis has pointed out (and
> > as I mentioned in my comment). There's a big ticket with various
> > proposals and at
>> Indeed, my idea though is to dodge imports in settings.py and just
>> use
>> dotted module names.
>
> I'm not sure why importing in settings.py is such a bad thing. Putting
> in dotted module names just moves the importing to somewhere else
> (which you don't control) and seems more 'magical'
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
