> However, be prepared for the outcome that your code may be rejected
> and thrown away. In this case, the code is serving as a working
> implementation of your proposal, and we still haven't been convinced
> of your proposal. Just writing the code doesn't mean it will
> automatically get accepted
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:44 PM, vegas wrote:
>
> Cool, will do. I guess the earliest release this could get into
> would be django 1.2?
>
> Looking at http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/
> , it seems to me like this would definitely be considered a non-
> trivial patc
Cool, will do. I guess the earliest release this could get into
would be django 1.2?
Looking at http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/
, it seems to me like this would definitely be considered a non-
trivial patch.
Should I work up a more readable version of my initial pro
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, vegas wrote:
>
> Okay, so I've looked at the previous discussion on this topic, and the
> code. Firstly let me say a big thank you to everyone who has worked on
> Django, it's a fabulously useful piece of software, and a lot of fun
> to work with.
>
> By my lights
Hey,
As per Russ's request, I'm pinging this thread. Does my proposal seem
feasible to people more familiar with Django's guts than I?
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 8, 9:38 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, vegas wrote:
>
> > Okay, so I've looked at the previous discuss
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM, vegas wrote:
>
> Okay, so I've looked at the previous discussion on this topic, and the
> code. Firstly let me say a big thank you to everyone who has worked on
> Django, it's a fabulously useful piece of software, and a lot of fun
> to work with.
Hi Alex,
Thanks
Okay, so I've looked at the previous discussion on this topic, and the
code. Firstly let me say a big thank you to everyone who has worked on
Django, it's a fabulously useful piece of software, and a lot of fun
to work with.
By my lights, changeset 8760 could be considered to induce a
regression.
Thanks for the pointer to previous discussion, will review and see if
I can contribute something useful.
Cheers,
Alex
On Sep 6, 12:58 am, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:16 AM, vegas wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
>
> > I was just doing some work, and I noticed that passing args and kw
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 12:16 AM, vegas wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I was just doing some work, and I noticed that passing args and kwargs
> to reverse raises an exception which explicitly tells me not to do
> that:
>if args and kwargs:
>raise ValueError("Don't mix *args and **kwar
Hi guys,
I was just doing some work, and I noticed that passing args and kwargs
to reverse raises an exception which explicitly tells me not to do
that:
if args and kwargs:
raise ValueError("Don't mix *args and **kwargs in call to
reverse()!")
I don't see an obvious reason for
10 matches
Mail list logo
