I am referring to this:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.3/#filefield-no-longer-deletes-files
Instead of preventing the data loss from happening a very usefull
feature has been removed.
Why not simply letting the developer decide when to enable or disable
it with a constructor boole
On 03/27/2011 06:42 AM, -RAX- wrote:
> I am referring to this:
> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.3/#filefield-no-longer-deletes-files
> Instead of preventing the data loss from happening a very usefull
> feature has been removed.
Well, it does also prevent the data loss from happe
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:42 AM, -RAX- wrote:
> I am referring to this:
> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.3/#filefield-no-longer-deletes-files
> Instead of preventing the data loss from happening a very usefull
> feature has been removed.
I'm sorry this caused an problem for you.
Now that 1.3 is out, does any core dev have an opinion, feedback or
suggestions on this?
I've solved my immediate need with two template loaders (subclasses of
the app_directories loader) that use thread locals. One prefixes the
requested template name with the app name and the other prefixes it
w
Hi all,
Now that 1.3 has been released (yay!), I'm reviving this thread to see
if we can make Trac a little more efficient on our way to 1.4. I'll
try to summarise what's been suggested so far in regard to improving
and clarifying the "Component" field:
* The "Contrib apps" component would be mad
Hello,
I'm not sure if the consensus so far is either "Meh" or "Let's give it
a try", or if there's even a consensus. I'm still keen on the idea but
I don't want to insist too much if it doesn't gather enough support,
so I'll re-submit it here one last time. The latest proposal is to
introduce a n
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Julien Phalip wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure if the consensus so far is either "Meh" or "Let's give it
> a try", or if there's even a consensus. I'm still keen on the idea but
> I don't want to insist too much if it doesn't gather enough support,
> so I'll re-sub
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Julien Phalip wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm not sure if the consensus so far is either "Meh" or "Let's give it
>> a try", or if there's even a consensus. I'm still keen on the idea but
>> I don't want to i
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Julien Phalip
> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if the consensus so far is either "Meh" or "Let's
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Julien Phalip wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Now that 1.3 has been released (yay!), I'm reviving this thread to see
> if we can make Trac a little more efficient on our way to 1.4. I'll
> try to summarise what's been suggested so far in regard to improving
> and clarifying t
On 28 March 2011 17:28, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > * Uncategorized (default)
> > * Feature request: for adding something new.
> > * Bug report: for when an existing thing is broken or not behaving as
> > expected.
> > * Optimisation: for when an existing thing is not broken but could be
> > m
On 03/28/2011 02:33 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> As with the other thread on Trac changes -- I agree this is worth
> doing, but would like to hear some other core dev voices before making
> any changes.
These changes look to me like a gain in sanity on every front. +1
Carl
--
You received
12 matches
Mail list logo
