On Sep 4, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> How often should I ping, so my patch won't be forgotten? :)
>
> Look - I don't want to appear rude or disparaging, but it will happen
> when it happens.
>
> Your patch is
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> How often should I ping, so my patch won't be forgotten? :)
Look - I don't want to appear rude or disparaging, but it will happen
when it happens.
Your patch is on a long list of things needing review -- including
hundreds currently sit
How often should I ping, so my patch won't be forgotten? :)
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> Am 19.08.2010 um 01:50 schrieb Waldemar Kornewald:
>
>> No comments means it's still not good enough and I'll never get it
>> into an acceptable shape? :)
>
> No, in that case we wo
Am 19.08.2010 um 01:50 schrieb Waldemar Kornewald:
> No comments means it's still not good enough and I'll never get it
> into an acceptable shape? :)
No, in that case we would tell you :) It's much more likely that nobody had
time yet (in the last 3 days) to look at your patch thoroughly.
Jann
No comments means it's still not good enough and I'll never get it
into an acceptable shape? :)
Bye,
Waldemar
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wro
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> I accept the need for this, but this seems like a bit of a wart. This
>> method wouldn't be required at all if the Form took a request
>> argument. This isn't an unusual r
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I accept the need for this, but this seems like a bit of a wart. This
> method wouldn't be required at all if the Form took a request
> argument. This isn't an unusual requirement, either -- perhaps we
> should introduce a RequestForm/R
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>> so, after our chat on IRC I've finally found the time to implement a
>> real proposal including unit tests. I've attached the patch to this
>> ticket:
>> ht
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> so, after our chat on IRC I've finally found the time to implement a
> real proposal including unit tests. I've attached the patch to this
> ticket:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13960
>
> Now there is just one bac
Hi Russell,
so, after our chat on IRC I've finally found the time to implement a
real proposal including unit tests. I've attached the patch to this
ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13960
Now there is just one backend type with a single setting:
FILE_BACKENDS = (
'path.to.Backend'
Apologies for the late reply - I was at a conference all weekend, so
I'm still catching up on mail.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>>> On
Hi again,
so, does the proposal look fine for now, so I can actually make a
patch or can you already tell me now that there is a problem which
needs to be solved, first?
Bye,
Waldemar Kornewald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" grou
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 08:40 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
>
>> The boolean is sufficient because those permission checks should be
>> done in the download view (or a router backend):
>>
>> if request.user.is_authenticated:
>> return file.
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 08:40 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> The boolean is sufficient because those permission checks should be
> done in the download view (or a router backend):
>
> if request.user.is_authenticated:
> return file.serve()
> else:
> # user has no permissions
This seems
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Robert Coup
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> FileField gets a new method prepare_upload() which takes the following
>> arguments:
>> * request
>> * upload_url: the target URL of the upload view
>> * private: should this be
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> FileField gets a new method prepare_upload() which takes the following
> arguments:
> * request
> * upload_url: the target URL of the upload view
> * private: should this be only privately accessibly or also publicly?
> (default: False;
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
>>> wrote:
>>> It also strikes me that a lot of th
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>> It also strikes me that a lot of this is being configured at the
>> global level -- i.e., you have to nom
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
> wrote:
> My initial impression of django-filetransfers is that you've
> constructed a lot of very complex infrastructure for what is
> ultimately a couple of very simple changes --
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> Hi,
> first I should say that I'm not 100% sure if this feature should be in
> Django core, so I'm kind-of asking for you opinion.
>
> Problem:
> Currently, Django already has an API for file uploads, but it's not
> useful for the new cl
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Gert Van Gool wrote:
> What's wrong with the current StorageBackends?
> Apart from the fact that everything goes through Django first, which imho
> isn't a bad default solution (easier for parsing and the like...).
Just to clarify: django-filetransfers is an addit
Hi,
first I should say that I'm not 100% sure if this feature should be in
Django core, so I'm kind-of asking for you opinion.
Problem:
Currently, Django already has an API for file uploads, but it's not
useful for the new cloud-based file services which support the more
efficient asynchronous upl
What's wrong with the current StorageBackends?
Apart from the fact that everything goes through Django first, which imho
isn't a bad default solution (easier for parsing and the like...).
-- Gert
Mobile: +32 498725202
Web: http://gert.selentic.net
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 08:55, Waldemar Kornewa
23 matches
Mail list logo
