e to break, etc.
Anyways, asides for circular dependency edge cases I think the rest of
the downsides can be mitigated by good docs. What do you guys think?
-Alex Ogier
P.S. I hear you are accepting GSOC applications.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&qu
ctly necessary, and can wait until
explicitly overriding fields has proper support in core (something I
think will be generally useful).
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, se
> Would something like the following alleviate that problem?
>
> class User(models.Model):
>if settings.USE_LONG_USER_FIELDS:
>username = models.CharField(max_length=255, unique=True, ...)
>else:
>username = models.CharField(max_length=30, unique=True, ...)
>...
Maybe,
backends. You basically hack them on in a per-project
fashion, wherever you define your profile.
Pluggable user field mixins would let people take advantage of auth
backends in a whole new way: distribute an auth backend and associated
fields in an app, and people can install it by changing settings and
I like the project and am +1 on Łukasz's points #1 and #3.
Meta.fk_level looks very useful though. For example if models have
parent/sibling relationships or otherwise relate to themselves and you
can't guarantee the relationships are acyclic.
Definitely a worthy project.
-Alex Ogie
the same parameter that throws at time of serialization.
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, sen
nsidering the first phase to be serializing a model instance
into python primitive types, before serializing it to a textual
format.
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email t
mmonly, would basically
dictate a high-level architecture that consists of a lot of
meta-programming expressed through lazy references and class attributes,
resolving as the first requests make their way through the project.
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
to expose pieces of
auth.User for people to reuse and/or depend on.
https://github.com/ogier/django/tree/auth-mixins
Does anyone have any opinions?
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this
south.aeracode.org/docs/settings.html#south-migration-modules>setting
to handle this.
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To
at in turn
imports django.contrib.admin.models in their settings file. It's not a
common situation, probably, and it's an unfortunate restriction for many
reasons. So if I were to propose a patch that did so, would it get shut
down for that reason?
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message
th, off-topic, or non-objective comments will be cut -- or at
> least heavily edited.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
I hope you don't mind, I added solution 2a. It's basically solution 2 minus
the monkey-patching and resultant circular dependency issues, and
correspondingly requir
n the wiki as a limitation.
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+un
each
field you remove is an unknown risk.
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-deve
Why does the demo require Facebook integration?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubs
n't
necessarily match your conception.
-Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
you want the tutorial code as a reference, the tutorial itself
is an excellent textual description of all the changes made, so why not
just refer to that?
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post t
{% url "app_views.client" %}
But this change definitely doesn't make things "dirty," in fact it cleans
up the tag to have consistent syntax with nearly every other tag, such as
{% block %} and {% extends %}
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because yo
t for the email field is important, arguably a 1.5
release blocker, but so long as there is a good chance that migration
support will be 1.5's poster-child feature then I think email support
should be our poster child's poster child.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because yo
>
Well yes, it's not widespread: It's currently impossible. And it's only
three lines if you want to explicitly create a context variable inside a
template (which you will note is done with a quoted string constant). What
your example demonstrates is how to create a constant variab
x27;t know the usual timeframe on
controversial decisions like this, so if it is unlikely that a BDFL will
put their foot down significantly before the deadline then that is also
good to know. I could then apply with a looser definition of the project
contingent on an eventual decision.
Ciao,
t. The question is why force_encoding(...,
errors='replace') is giving you a string that PostgreSQL can't handle.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
son (possibly with C
extensions) whenever available.
Therefore I am in favor of option #1, unless the shim is so trivial as
to warrant asking any developers who use it to rewrite it themselves.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> Option 2 looks be
lejson. I don't know how common that is, most alternate json
modules appear pretty inactive but you never know.
Also, whether or not that is common, it turns out there has been a bug
that looks like it was added last October that means that no one has
been using the system json module at all.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am for number 2 too, but don't forget that's deprecation in 1.5 and 1.6
> and removal in 1.7
>
> Cheers,
> Florian
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscr
t's just not worth
worrying about.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote:
> On 30 March 2012 13:04, Alex Ogier wrote:
> > At the same time, I want to reiterate my support for option #1: not
> deprecating the
> > module and leaving t
ns (and hence, what your login forms look
like), add in whatever authentication mechanisms you like, add in whatever
authorization mechanisms you need (with specific instructions on what
contrib.admin demands from your model), and run with that.
Sorry for the rant, hopefully I'm not burning
n #2?"
Then as soon as everyone does that and facebook, twitter, browserid, and
plain emails all share the same namespace, we open up the same whole can of
worms that we get with cache keys, except now failures to manage things
properly manifest themselves as security holes in basic authentication
i
x27;s proposal.
You can find it at https://gist.github.com/2289395
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Hi folks --
>
> I've written up a proposal for how *I* would like to address refactoring
> auth.user: https://gist.github.com/2245327.
>
e chunks into a ticket on trac? I think it makes
sense to merge no matter what we decide on for specific settings and access
mechanisms to developer-defined users.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
T
ed on, and they give the project enough direction that it will rapidly
become obvious if and when I am derailing your conception of what needs to
be done, so I hope you will consider letting it be done as a GSoC project.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
Fair enough. My goal was never to shut down collaboration, and if GSoC will
do that then I am happy to drop it. The money was never my motivation, and
I will definitely still contribute what I can.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wednesday, Apri
oesn't restrict you from
altering display values for internationalization.
It seems to me like this is really a documentation problem, where
distilling the wisdom of developers like Adrian into a little best
practices paragraph in the choices argument reference would go very far in
making the awk
ined MALE/FEMALE as globals too :) Otherwise you'll get
> a NameError.
>
> --
> Łukasz Rekucki
As attributes of the class object I'm pretty sure they are in scope. No
NameErrors there.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Interesting, you are right. It's still a little strange to me to be
accessing class attributes via the self object, but I suppose it is more
flexible than accessing them as User.MALE etc. which would make renaming
the class awkward.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 5, 2012 2:16 PM, "Łukasz Rekuc
force decisions on them.
So, stop thinking just in terms of contrib.auth.models.User. If you're
already using that with a profile and it's all working fine, then this
change isn't for you. This is for everyone who just wishes auth.User would
go away without totally borking admin.
Respectfully,
Alex O
Tai, read https://gist.github.com/2289395 for a summary of many reasons why
I think profiles are a bad idea, and unifying multiple profiles is an even
worse idea.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Tai Lee wrote:
> Alex Ogier,
>
> Is it really better to require users
could roll your own proxy
attributes to app fields, after all you control the entire user class.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 10, 2012 5:47 AM, "Tom Evans" wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Alex Ogier wrote:
> > Tai, read https://gist.github.com/2289395 for a summary of many
are a bunch of
standard ways to relate to a model that don't invasively change it. They
are all still available, and in fact preferred because no matter how easy
it is to use a mixin, doing nothing is even easier.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 10, 2012 10:58 AM, "Tom Evans" wrote:
> On
Tai,
I think you are overestimating the importance of a "pluggable" user model.
If 100 apps all try to add fields to the User model then of course bloat
and performance issues and field name conflicts will be a problem. But I
don't think that will happen. There are very good reasons for an app *no
every other unhandled exception.
It's not a code path you should ever reach in normal use, only when someone
is getting crafty with the admin URLs. A 400 response suggests that there
is a fixable error somewhere, and there isn't.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 11, 2012 2:44 PM, "3point2&q
Maybe it would be worth experimenting with various combinations of django
1.x django-admin.py executables with django 1.4 libraries? Maybe if
django-admin.py is a symlink into a 1.3 tree but django 1.4 is on the
search path this stuff could crop up?
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 12, 2012 2:32 PM, "
can be done at load time to avoid
performance hits from isinstance calls.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Apr 12, 2012 2:59 PM, "Carl Meyer" wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 12:43 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> > It is important that pre/post init signals will not get more expensive
> > than
;t
happen. It's a bit hacky but it would work.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> On 12 avr. 2012, at 21:16, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> > The open question is just how this situation occurs in the fi
27;distutils.dir_util.remove_tree'. Adding that for our
specific directory that needs to be clean should work, yes?
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to dj
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> Alex Ogier writes:
>
> > That seems like too much to ask. "setup.py install" should Just
> > Work(tm),
>
> In the absence of a proper package management system (as implemented in
> operating syst
So, this "import django"
will import relative to current directory and will work.
>
And in fact, this behavior is relied upon. Django's setup.py imports the
relative django to get the version number.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
le create issues on github is to
> disable it for the
> official repository. This is possible through the Github's Admin interface.
>
Err, I think the point was that Trac is less accessible than Github so
Django *should* be using Github Issues instead.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You re
everal successful projects
that use git that use patch-based workflows rather than merging. The
advantage of that is a linear history with each feature packaged into
a neat commit. The extra detail is great for developing, but not so
great for a mainline history (it breaks 'git bisect' for ex
fits, and all the same drawbacks, so I don't
think anyone would seriously advocate moving there.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroup
I have posted instructions on how to easily and safely rebase feature
branches from an old fork of Django's SVN mirror onto Django's official git
repository. I hope this helps. Let me know if you need help or the
instructions are unclear or incorrect.
https://gist.github.com/2549844
ust a theory, but it explains the behavior you are seeing if you are
importing a different name when you do the native import.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On May 7, 2012 4:34 PM, "Scott Sadler" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm making some extensions to the Django AdminSite for dashboard I'
clean
up commit messages for posterity.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> On May 18, 6:08 pm, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> I personally prefer doing normal merges with --no-ff. While
Git actually has native support for this workflow. Each commit has an
"author" and a "committer" which are typically the same, but in the
case of a squash merge or patch are different.
For example,
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=72c04a
form, you rely on the
internals executing something for you, which makes understanding
preconditions for various methods difficult to understand without
extensive docs.
Anyways, this is a deeper problem than "There are two things we can
fix, let's get on that."
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
el Foo
has an unknown field: `field_name` of type: `project.app.CustomField`.
Please register this field with
`django.db.migrations.register_field()` before creating migrations on
the Foo model." Also, you can support third-party fields by
registering them in your own modules if you need
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>
> i.e. simplejson returns bytestrings if the string is ASCII (it returns
> unicode objects otherwise), while json returns unicode objects always.
>
This seemed strange to me because the standard library json shipping
with python 2.7.3 is in fac
#x27;}
>>> from django.utils import simplejson
>>> simplejson.loads('{"a":"b"}')
{u'a': u'b'}
>>> json.loads == simplejson.loads
True
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
eady on systems without
simplejson. If Django depends on optimized behavior, then it is a bug,
and a ticket should be filed.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send e
subtle problems when
switching to json, recommend that people switch to simplejson instead,
or undeprecate django.utils.simplejson as a necessary wart (we can
still stop vendoring simplejson though).
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&quo
fields other than primary keys use hidden input
widgets by default, so it's rather obvious when something changes. We
don't have the Rails problem where one dev makes a scaffold form for
an insecure model and another one adds a secure field to the model
opening up a security ho
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Alex Ogier wrote:
>>
>> No one can sneak extra unexpected fields past a developer by editing HTML
>> client side, because if the field wasn't rendered to HTML it's not
>>
ry:
+0 on option 1. Making a ModelForm is already a choice to expose a
model directly.
-1 on option 2. Default is still insecure, and Meta.exclude has use cases.
+0 on option 3. It's like my option 4, but requires [for field in
Model._meta.fields] hackery to work around.
+1 on option 4. Auto-g
r examples see "
It's an easy thing to justify turning on in an opt-out fashion,
Meta.allow_partial_submissions or something.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, se
e all our
forms are explicit, it is feasible to catch that scenario and throw an
error, which I think we should do.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develo
en they are
unchecked. Kind of throws a wrench in my plan.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, s
hon 3 and more idiomatic python, I
would implement the function as:
def html_mark_safe(format_string, *args):
return mark_safe(format_string.format(*map(conditional_escape, args)))
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers&q
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alex Ogier wrote:
>
> Also, to be compatible with python 3 and more idiomatic python, I
> would implement the function as:
>
> def html_mark_safe(format_string, *args):
> return mark_safe(format_string.format(*map(conditional_escape, a
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>
> Some other alternatives: build_html, build_html_safe, format_html
>
+1 for format_html.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post
They are also dated and appropriately
transient: a blog post from 2008 can be forgiven for missing some latest
best practices, whereas a tutorial enshrined in Django's official
documentation cannot.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
hanisms
if possible, and should be able to explicitly opt out if necessary.
Almost everyone should be using every single protection Django offers
on all their requests, and therefore it should be verbose and
discouraged to turn off these protections.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message
est practice to create new HttpResponses would *really* break this.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from thi
> Until the Python developers announce an actual timeline for removal
> (if they ever do), I can't see any reason for Django to be concerned
> about which formatting approach to use, apart from the immediate
> concerns of style and efficiency.
I don't think Python will ever remove %-style formatti
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> I suppose you could see it as a semantic nuance. However, to my mind,
> there is a different. A skipped test is something that could -- or
> even *should* be run -- but can't due to missing some optional
> prerequisite. In this case,
declaration.
>
> IPython 0.12.1
> Python 2.7.2 (v2.7.2:8527427914a2, Jun 11 2011, 15:22:34)
>
This is almost certainly related to https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/18204
I can repro just as Alex Gaynor did, and the patch from the above
ticket fixes it.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You
django-model-blueprint without even requiring any changes to
INSTALLED_APPS, which means the only benefit to being in core is
canonicalizing the pattern.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To pos
go’s admin will blow your mind
There are a lot of other good python frameworks nowadays with lots of nice
features, but this is the one that keeps me coming back to Django.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers&
ng from local disk and writing
to S3, this is a big win, and doesn't require cooperation from any other
backends, or standardizing on md5 as a fingerprint method.
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
T
t "Fix it yourself" is
a hackneyed open-source truism, and "Speed doesn't matter" is more or less
self-evidently false -- especially to someone evaluating frameworks, who
may not yet have a strong opinion on what features are game-changers for
his application.
Best,
Alex Og
t to core. Hopefully it
addresses your use case though.
Here's an example of a similar snippet someone has written, though
obviously you want to keep the same PK instead of auto-generating a new
one: http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/904/
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message beca
tractBaseUser + UsernameMixin + PermissionsMixin. I might
try that on my branch, and see how it works out. My guess is it will work
just fine albeit with an absurdly deep inheritance tree.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Ryan Kaskel wrote:
> I implemented a custom User model in
OK
limitation. Forms will still have to be overridden, but that was always
inevitable.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On 6 marras, 23:05, Alex Ogier wrote:
>
> > ... Since you can't actually override or change the fields of an
> abstract model
27;t to go mixin-crazy, it's to find the best way to expose
permissions-checking (the most boilerplate-heavy of the requirements of an
admin-compatible user). The other contracts are probably better exposed as
tests in contrib.admin than as little piece-wise mixins.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu,
jango's ModelBackend.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Christian Jensen wrote:
> I was tweaking around with making an email address only User model (sans
> username) while still retaining the permissions stuff and ran into a small
> issue. I can fix it but it might need
Oh, my apologies, the proper argument to set the name of the table that is
created for a ManyToManyField is db_table instead of db_column (which just
controls the column on the user table itself). Entirely my mistake.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Christian Jensen wrote
For example, you miss Http404 and other error responses, which are
implemented as exceptional control flow. In addition, you can't do any
preprocessing of the request; for example, you can't set up any invariants
before your actual view method is called.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Wed, Nov 1
To be fair, the query you describe is significantly more expensive than
Marek's query.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Marek Brzóska
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/11/30 Tom Evans
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Marek Brzóska
> >
Well, most GNU command line utilities have an option
--color=always|auto|never that defaults to auto. Seems like it works for
them, so replicating it for management commands makes more sense than an
environment variable to me.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote
letter and no "Input" suffix. So the naming is
consistent, and agrees with the HTML tags, even though it looks a little
weird without that knowledge.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Wim Feijen wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I was just wondering, and maybe my Eng
Your new method will bypass their customizations.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Byron Ruth wrote:
> I don't understand your argument regarding overriding `__init__`. Nothing
> has changed in __init__, the logic for setting `data` and `files` is simply
> mov
see unexpected things if they override it). So
I'm -0 due to the additional complexity for something which is already
possible and has a widely used idiom, even if it is more verbose.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Byron Ruth wrote:
> I don't want to belabor our di
e on the server is a better
way of handling times. As a result, if the settings module doesn't contain
a TIME_ZONE setting, then you get 'America/Chicago' in order to be
backwards compatible, but when you make a new project you get the current
best-practice setting which is UTC.
Be
ss you manually check for it,
you shouldn't even notice that you are getting Pillow libraries
instead of PIL libraries. Which means that supporting pillow *should*
be as easy as Marijonas suggests, unless there actually are real
regressions. Just install it instead of or in addition to PIL when
t
fix. Besides, it does have some merit as it is consistent with
`./manage.py somecommand`, which is the recommended way to run pretty
much every command except "startproject".
Best,
Alex Ogier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Dja
n stay modern outside of core,
then it will die, but we should make it a trivial matter to fork and adopt
for whoever needs it.
Anyways, +1 from me.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Luke Granger-Brown wrote:
> +1 from me too - I've only tried using django.contrib.commen
for them.
[1]: http://pytools.codeplex.com/
[2]:
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/python/tutorials/django-with-visual-studio/
[3]:
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/python/tutorials/web-app-with-django-and-mysql/
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wro
to passing most tests.
So I see no reason to split off backends unless the maintenance burden is
such that they are chronically broken in every Django release. And every
reason to add MSSQL unless the maintenance burden is too high.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Erik Romijn
ults. If you want to modularize them, you are free to do so yourself. I
think composing settings internally is just added complexity for little
benefit.
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Omer Katz wrote:
> Lately I implemented some changes for django's settings module .
>
ow-tos on deployment we could write up some good practices for managing
settings in multiple contexts -- that would be more welcome than code in
Django core, I think. Midterms end today for me, so maybe I will try
writing up some of the practices that make managing settings easier for me
later tonigh
ems like a bad idea, versus
"Install django-configurations, and now you have a new tool in your toolbox
to put in settings.py that imports from the environment!"
Best,
Alex Ogier
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Omer Katz wrote:
> You haven't referred to the pull request
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
