On 1/18/06, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In addition to this, we should probably also remove the module_name
> option from Meta. It doesn't make any sense in light of the other
> magic-removal changes anyhow. I think most instances of it could be
> replaced with lower(obj._meta.o
On 1/6/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/06, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization
> > have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
> > default. I don't think they should be. Is
hugo пишет:
>>expressing an opinion. See http://www.djangoproject.com/
>>documentation/contributing/#deciding-on-features for a bit more on
>>how we use voting in the Django community.
>
> Actually rereading that stuff, I think it would be useful to have a
> list somewhere where you list people
>expressing an opinion. See http://www.djangoproject.com/
>documentation/contributing/#deciding-on-features for a bit more on
>how we use voting in the Django community.
Actually rereading that stuff, I think it would be useful to have a
list somewhere where you list people with commit access an
On Jan 7, 2006, at 12:51 PM, Dody Suria Wijaya wrote:
Can I also vote? Or is it something reserved for the core developers?
The "votes" aren't really official, but are more a way of succinctly
expressing an opinion. See http://www.djangoproject.com/
documentation/contributing/#deciding-on-
Ivan Fedorov wrote:
Adrian Holovaty пишет:
In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization
have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
default. I don't think they should be. Is this just a change that's
meant to happen, but hasn't yet? I seem to remembe
On 1/7/06, Amit Upadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you rehash the pros and cons for this decision? Are we going to get rid
> of pluralization completely?
Yes, we're getting rid of pluralization completely. It's too messy --
and beyond the scope of a Web framework -- to automate rules of th
Adrian Holovaty пишет:
>>In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization
>>have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
>>default. I don't think they should be. Is this just a change that's
>>meant to happen, but hasn't yet? I seem to remember a thread where
>
On 1/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/6/06, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization> have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
> default. I don't think they should be. Is this just a c
On 1/6/06, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization
> have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
> default. I don't think they should be. Is this just a change that's
> meant to happen, but hasn't yet? I s
In the magic-removal branch most traces of automatic pluralization
have been removed, but the table names are still pluralized by
default. I don't think they should be. Is this just a change that's
meant to happen, but hasn't yet? I seem to remember a thread where
people wanted to get rid of all a
11 matches
Mail list logo
