Hey Idan --
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Idan Gazit wrote:
> I've been working on prettyfication of the DDT. Github:
> http://github.com/idangazit/django-debug-toolbar/tree/idan-ui-rf. It's
> a reasonably complete reskinning of the existing DDT. There are still
> a couple of outstanding issue
Hi folks --
Y'know, there's quite a bit of bike-shedding going on in this
discussion, and not a whole lot of code writing. Remember that our
general policy is that whoever builds the shed gets to paint it; y'all
might want to spend some of this energy actually working on a patch.
Jacob
--~--~--
Hi Jonas --
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Jonas Obrist wrote:
> Basically it lets you define a class in settings which extends the User
> table before it's created, using subclassing.
This is a non-starter. It's not going to happen.
Back in the day, Django actually had this "feature." There
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Joshua Russo wrote:
> I will try hooking into both post_save and post_delete signals though I was
> looking for a more unified approach, to avoid repetition.
You may already know this, but you can hook the same method up to
multiple signals::
def handle_save_
Django is a server-side framework. It should never dictate front-end
considerations.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-devel
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> Do you think that using *any* javascript framework for admin interface
> will get boost for useful admin, overall django improvements and
> third-party plugins development?
That's a different question entirely. The admin's an optional
*appli
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I'll take a Jacob's comment a step further and say that I personally
> am opposed to Django using an external JS framework for even the
> admin. My reason for this is that it restricts the ability of people
> to contribute to Django.
Heh.
We
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> How Django will/would package jQuery? That one for admin-ui.
Like I said, let's table this discussion until there's actually
something specific to talk about. Otherwise this is all just
hand-waving, and I do enough of that anyway.
Jacob
--~
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM, James Bennett wrote:
> There is no timeline I'm aware of. And, personally, I don't think
> there's a need for any sort of special process: these are pieces of
> work which can be proposed for inclusion in Django just like anything
> else.
That's generally my feeli
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Jared Kuolt wrote:
> I propose that the core team set a timeline to resolve this, one way
> or another, with input from the community.
If we could agree on a common server format that let anyone use any
DVCS they chose on their personal machines, then we'd get th
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Thomas K. Adamcik wrote:
> In essence we could add only one new method to the API that returns a
> URL-object that provides access to the data:
I like this idea a lot. It solves most of the problems I have with
get_absolute_url:
* I dislike the name -- far too v
Hi folks --
I'd like to start thinking about merging the SoC branches. As far as I
can tell we've got solid, worth-merging work out of all six of 'em --
WOOHOO! -- so let's cracking getting this stuff to trunk so people can
play with it.
I'd like to ask each mentor/student pair to give me a bit
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Ivan Sagalaev
wrote:
>> In the rare cases when I do need to split a URL into parts I just use
>> urlsplit:
>>
>> schema, domain, path, query, fragment = urlsplit(obj.url())
That's not in any way intitutive for a new user in the way that
`obj.url().schema` is
Hi guys --
Ya know, this conversation is going in circles, and arguing over
increasingly trivial details. As always, our policy is that the person
who builds the bikeshed gets to decide which color it is, so I'd
suggest we all stop writing email and start writing Python now. Work
up a patch, and
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM, lakin wrote:
> Does anyone have the time to review the patch, please?
Looks good; I've marked it ready for commit.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django dev
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Ivan Sagalaev
wrote:
> Ticket [9886] is one of the things that I've been holding for 1.2 time
> frame to ask for some discussion since Jacob marked it DDN.
At first glance, you need docs and tests before you get a second glance :)
Jacob
--~--~-~--~
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Ben Davis wrote:
> So by documentation, do you mean updating the official django docs, or
> better documentation in the code itself?
Yes :)
As a general rule:
* Self-documenting code is fine sans comments, but anything
non-obvious needs explanation in the cod
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> However, decorator_from_middleware is a pain, since it doesn't always return a
> an actual decorator, for "historical reasons". I need to change this to fix
> the bug. Is anyone against this?
No, I think this is precisely correct. I've been
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> At this point, I'm convinced, mod the minor things I've flagged.
> However, I'd like to see Jacob and Malcolm chime in before this is
> committed.
I've mostly stayed out of the discussion because I haven't had much
helpful to say that
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> James B - do we have a place to list things like this i.e. things
> that probably should go in release notes?
I think it'd probably be best to just start
docs/releases/1.2-alpha.txt right now. We can list this stuff as we
add it, and then some
Hi folks --
Yup, it's that time again!
For the tl;dr-ers, here's the short version:
* We're aiming to release Django 1.2 on March 9th, 2010.
* We'll begin voting on features for 1.2 very soon (today or tomorrow).
* We're modifying the process slightly from last time; in particular,
we're going
Hi Rob --
First, thanks for taking this on. The tutorial indeed needs some good
lovin'; glad to see someone stepping up to the plate. I don't have a
huge amount of bandwidth these days, but I can commit to writing a
bit, and to editing anything you or anyone else writes.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Simon Willison wrote:
> For anyone interested in following this, I've just started a
> (currently experimental) branch on GitHub:
>
> http://github.com/simonw/django/tree/logging
One big question I have is about performance: have you done any a/b
testing against t
Hey folks --
Like last time 'round, if you'd like to express an opinion about
features for Django 1.2, go and vote:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtIlKMKDxMBpdGVPVXlTODVLeTBpNkdLd3hqZzdYR3c&hl=en
I've reorganized the 1.2 feature list
(http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.2Featu
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Lastly, one issue that seems unaddressed is the transition plan for
> replacing user.message_set. The preamble to the wiki page makes a
> compelling argument for ditching message_set, but remains silent on a
> proposal for how Django (
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Paul McLanahan wrote:
> I took what Jacob said to be the opposite. It sounded to me like he
> was suggesting that we keep the existing user messaging api, but
> change the internals of it to use the new notifications framework for
> storage. In my head it goes so
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I want to fix #6552 (also #12031), and I've attached a patch that
> makes the auth context processor lazy.
The patch looks good to me. The approach is a bit hard to follow what
with the multiple types of lazyness involved, but it makes enough
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I think changing the result of {{ user }} in the template is a bad
> idea.
Eh, I don't think it's a big deal. I just grepped through a *lot* of
Django code and can't find that use anywhere.
> Luckily it can easily be solved by adding an __un
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> 4) Add a completely new shortcut:
>
> bikeshed(request, *args, **kwargs)
>
> which does exactly what render_to_response does, but instantiates a
> RequestContext. I've deliberately chosen a nonsense name - at the
> moment, deciding if
Hi Sanford --
This is the wrong place for a posting like this -- django-developers
is for discussion of core Django development. You'll be better off
posting this to django-users and/or djangogigs.com.
Good luck!
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mes
Hi Yuri, Mart --
I feel that I need to make it clear that I'm not ignoring you, or this
conversation. However, the tone is so hostile and unprofessional that
it'd be a waste of my time to try to engage, so I'm simply going to
stay out.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM, mrts wrote:
> Jacob, I'm afraid you totally misunderstood me.
> My message was intended to encourage people to
> scratch their own itches more now that it's so
> much easier -- and, of course, give back --
> instead of grumbling on the mailing list.
Yup, that's
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> how would you reformulate this in friendly and professional tone so
> this can be discussed?
I don't have time to teach you how to communicate professionally.
Reading your message first makes me feel angry, then dismayed. It
makes me feel a
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
> But how do I run these? It takes many many seconds to run the whole
> suite.
See http://ericholscher.com/blog/2009/oct/16/easy-running-django-test-suite/
if you need help running the test suite.
Remember: `runtests.py` uses the same mech
Hi folks --
Based on the votes and comments I've received for Django 1.2 I've
prepared a breakdown of features into high, medium, and low priority:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.2Features.
I've noted associated committers and, where I know 'em, lieutenants.
Please make corrections
2009/10/23 kmike :
> Some features from wiki proposal page don't get their way to google
> spreadsheet (ex: 2 cache-related proposals) and they are not mentioned
> in the final features page neither in a list of accepted features nor
> in a list of rejected features.
That's because they were prop
> So any tickets that have the full gambit of patch/docs/tests should make it
> into 1.2?
In theory. Keep in mind, though, that us committers have limited
mental bandwidth so we can't absolutely promise to get to every single
ticket.
I'll do my best, of course, but at the end of the day I'm goin
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:42 AM, James Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:53 AM, kugutsumen wrote:
>> Support for non-relational databases (AppEngine, #10192) +1
>
> Repeating once again: the voting's over and done with. The proposals
> have been assigned their priorities. Time to move
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> I don't know who maintains or has access to the buildbot machine,
It's me, probably. Buildbot's in bad shape, currently; it's basically
another part-time job just keeping the damn thing running.
I've more or less given up and am working on
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I've got a patch to let __in accept comma-separated strings; I'm using
> this locally to avoid going through the trouble of splitting a string
> before processing a GET.
I'm -1 on this. Is `filter(foo__in=s.split())` really all that har
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Point still stands, it's impossible to pass a true iterable (1-char
> iterables don't count) to a GET.
What?
>>> from django.http import QueryDict
>>> q = QueryDict('a=1&a=2&a=3&b=4&b=5')
>>> q.getlist('a')
[u'1', u'2', u'3']
>>> q.get
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> There is a patch on http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12095 that
> tries to address this.
Repeating what I said on #django-dev this morning, I'm +1 on this
patch. Rending forms via an inclusion tag is a pretty common pattern
[1], and we sho
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Jiri Barton wrote:
> I was wondering if a consensus has been reached and __nonzero__
> could use the new QuerySet.exists()?
This was discussed, and Luke explains why __nonzero__ can't do this
optimization here:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11402#comment:5.
Hi Russ --
I'm +1 on merging the patch immediately. I have some feedback on the
couple of issues you raised below, but I see no reason they can't be
addressed after merging.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> The automatically generated m2m model is the equivalent of
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> A quick reminder - if you have any objections or feedback on #10109,
> the M2M refactor [1], I intend to land this patch in approximately 48
> hours.
I've left a few comments in that thread, but they don't need to be
addressed pre-mer
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Ben Ford wrote:
> I'm really curious though -- can anyone remember far back enough to
> know where this came from? I haven't been able to find a single
> mention of DISABLE_TRANSACTION_MANAGEMENT anywhere in django's
> history!
I'm pretty sure this is a document
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Alexander Konovalenko
wrote:
> Personally I can live without full SSL support because there are
> work-arounds, but svn checkout over SSL is essential for me.
It's on my todo list.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Jens Ådne Rydland wrote:
> This seems to be caused by EmptyQuerySet not overriding update(),
> shouldn't this just return 0?
Yup, that's a bug. Can you please open a ticket so that we don't forget this?
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Waylan Limberg wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice the docs suggest setting MESSAGE_STORAGE like so:
>
> MESSAGE_STORAGE = 'cookie.CookieStorage'
>
> Just yesterday, in reference to another upcoming feature, Jacob
> commented that he would prefer all such setti
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:57 PM, mrts wrote:
> Done, http://github.com/django-mq/django-mq .
>
> I'm willing to regularly review pull requests and add
> collaborators who are willing to do the same.
I'll keep an eye on your queue; I can easily push good patches from
there upstream to SVN.
If yo
Hi Creeper --
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:14 PM, creeper wrote:
> I'm new to Django . As well versed with Drupal i would like to know
> actions & triggers type feature in Dj. May be some of you familiar
> with such type concept in Dj ?
This question ought to be directed towards django-users; that
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Unless Jacob feels strongly otherwise, let's go with class-based.
Nope, I don't feel strongly at all. I think I agree that I've a slight
preference for the explicitness of naming the class "out loud," so
let's do that.
Jacob
--
You rece
Hi folks --
According to our timeline, we're at (a bit past, actually) the point
where we need to take a quick look at progress towards 1.2 and decide
whether the current timeline still makes sense.
Right now, we've completed 4.5 features on the 1.2 priority list:
* Comment admin actions (Co
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Obviously, I can do triaging and provide feedback on patches. Can
> I be blessed to say "Ready for checkin"?
Please - that'd really help me.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django deve
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Perhaps I missed the gripping conclusion, but wasn't there some
> outstanding work to be done on multi-db's interaction with admin?
The conclusion was that we could (and should, eventually) make it
easier (perhaps a `using` option on ModelAdmi
Hi Russ --
This is looking pretty great; I'm a big fan of this approach. I've
looked through the places I've needed to work around this problem with
serializers, and your fix would work in every case, so I think you
nailed it.
I do, however, have one wrench to throw into the works:
As it stands,
Okay, I've not heard any voices requesting that we push the release.
So we're still on the same schedule. Let's do it!
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroup
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> There's overlap, but it isn't necessarily a perfect match.
Good points -- you've clearly thought this through farther than me.
Consider the wrench withdrawn :)
If you need another set of eyes on the code, I'm happy to give it a
review
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM, ab wrote:
> or because the Django project thinks it's supporting a backend that
> actually no one is paying attention to.
Probably this. psycopg 1 hasn't been updated since October 2005; I
can't recall anyone I know who's still using it.
That said, we claim to su
Hi folks --
I'd like to start the process of deprecating and removing support for
psycopg 1. Why?
* psycopg 2 is better in every way.
* psycopg 1 hasn't been updated since October 2005; it's basically a dead end.
* I don't know anyone using it in production.
* For the couple-three people who *are
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I'm guessing it's the standard way to do things and this may be a bit
> offtopic but still, out of curiousity, since the PendingDepWarning is
> not visible by default doesn't this actually give the users just the
> illusion of more time to
Hey Russ --
I've reviewed both these patches and they look great. I'll probably
proof the docs at some point, but that shouldn't prevent merge --
merge away!
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, sen
Hey folks --
Forgot to mention it during the sprint this weekend, but I've pushed a
RC patch to #11863, Model.objects.raw(). If anyone's got any feedback,
let it fly. Otherwise, I'll be checking this in in a couple-three days
or so.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Thanks for the review, Jeremy.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> This bit doesn't seem to be true; It seems that missing fields will
> raise InsuficientFields instead. Am I reading it wrong?
Ah, good catch. I'd intended to remove this behavior as it's overly
strict -- the w
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> No need for workaround docs - I've just uploaded an RC3 patch that
> implements deferred fields.
Sweet! I love it when other people do my work for me...
> The one gotcha on this patch is that it now requires that you request
> the pri
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> This won't work, because deferred fields are descriptors, and
> accessing foo.field would run the query.
>
> Something you could do is foo.deferred_fields.field_name -> Boolean,
> but that seems pretty clunky to me.
You can get at this infor
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> I've uploaded what I think is a commit-ready patch for adding
> BigIntegerField. Barring any major objections I'd like to commit this in
> the next day or two.
Looks good to me - go ahead.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you ar
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
> Haven't run any tests, but as a small request - I would be very happy that
> you guys take a look ticket #11017 it's quite performance killer to some
> selects on char fields (specially startswith) on Oracle.
This has nothing to do with multi
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Ben Firshman wrote:
> Patch and ticket done. Any comments?
It's looking pretty perfect to me. The only things I can see missing
are the various formal bits of deprecating the old and documenting the
new: you need deprecation warnings, notes in the deprecation sche
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Code-wise, though, everything looks fine. Don't worry too much about
> getting to all the formal stuff: I'll probably be committing this
> today.
Or not. There's a fa
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Simon Willison wrote:
> We do however need to consider the places in Django that are already
> using hmac / md5 / sha1 (contrib.formtools and middleware.csrf for
> example). Even if we don't add the signed cookies feature to 1.2,
> fixing any problems with our exis
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> So, thinking out loud here, I know the DSF has a policy of hands of in
> the development of Django, but I was thinking (out loud) that perhaps
> it would be sensible for the DSF to hire someone to do a security
> audit of some of this stuff. I
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I haven't taken the temperature of anyone else in the core, but you
> can take it as read that Simon and myself are both +1. The sprint this
> weekend would be a great opportunity to advocate for inclusion of
> this. With a few tests and
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:38 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> To clarify your position Jacob - are you advocating that
> shortcuts.render() should return a TemplateReponse? Or are you
> suggesting that we add a TemplateResponse *and* a shortcut.render()
> that is an analog of render_to_response, bu
Hi Alex --
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Alex Rades wrote:
> I'm sorry for asking this here, but the question was raised several
> time on the -users mailing list and I don't think we users have a
> solution for it.
I hate to be a jerk, but django-dev isn't "second-level support" or
somesuch.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Specifically, I want to make this change because I've had a couple of
> conversations in the recent past that have gone something like:
>
> Them: How do you make Django do X before/during/after a test run?
> Me: You write a custom tes
Hi folks --
I had a conversation this morning with one of my clients. In the
interests of being a good corporate citizen I'll refrain from
mentioning who other than (a) they're big (Fortune 1000), (b) you've
heard of them, and (c) they're using Django.
Before our chat, they'd invited any engineer
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I don't understand how avoiding the settings.py mechanism will produce
> *more* flexibility.
The problem -- at least as I see it -- is that of a intertwingulment
of "application" settings with "ops" settings.
As organizations get larger, role
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Ok - so that's the patch. Any comments, queries, or criticisms are welcome.
I'm happy -- +1.
One thing, to point out, though, is that this continues the slow
process of making `Model._meta` a de facto public API -- without being
able
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I would have guessed that a big issue with Django from an enterprise
> perspective is its use of 'singletons'.
[snip]
> How much is this an issue in practice?
Other than databases, it hasn't been much of an issue with most of the
BigCos I've be
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:24 AM, sago wrote:
> Case studies are helpful if folks can share them.
Just a quick note that the DSF is working on gathering case studies;
getting folks who have permission to share is indeed a tricky issue.
Not much is set up yet, but I, at least, would be *thrilled*
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Armin Ronacher
wrote:
> I would like to propose a different solution: do an instance check
> against a django TemplateSyntaxError (or any other template exception
> that has these .source attributes). That should be easy to accomplish
> and the debug system already
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, j...@jeffcroft.com wrote:
> A designer ought to be able to say, "It'd be really useful to
> me if the 'if' tag supported basic operators, and I'd be happy to help
> someone understand the needs of designers with regard to it, but I'm
> not capable of building it my
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I'm prompted by #12863 [1] to suggest that we remove the whole
> 'examples' directory, because:
+1.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send em
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:43 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> Thank you Karen. I've been hushed so many times about this [...]
I can't find any evidence that this is the case. In fact, this appears
to be your first post on django-developers.
Since you're (apparently) new here, I'm happy to cut you some s
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Jacob Burch wrote:
> This is in regards to Tickets #11675 and #12427.
A bit more background: I've been told at PyCon that cmemcached is
unmaintained and deliberately being left to die in favor of pylibmc.
Because of that I'm +1 on your proposal, and I'll argue th
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> Ah, Thanks Russell. I'm new to Django Dev stuff and wasn't aware that
> they don't do features for the next version and bugs for the current
> beta. That makes more sense though.
You'll probably want to read through our "how to contribute to Dj
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Mat Clayton wrote:
> Any thoughts on this as a change to the Email Backend system in django?
I'm not sure why you'd need any changes to the backend system:
couldn't you easily create a composite backend class that tried to
send email through multiple backends? He
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Cramet Matthieu wrote:
> Wouldn't it be interesting to build some Virtual Machines that people could
> grab and deploy directly in the cloud ? It might interest people willing to
> contribute hardware but not having much time to dedicate at maintaining it.
> I per
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:11 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> Well, I won't even try to argue with that, but there has to be a way
> to conquer problems like this in Django without editing the source
> code, don't you think?
There are many, and we've discussed this issue at length any number of
times over
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> There are many, and we've discussed this issue at length any number of
> times over the years. Please take the time to read over the history
> here; if you've got something new to add to the discussion I'd love
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Jacob Burch wrote:
> Thanks all for the helpful discussion here. From the sounds of thing,
> my course of action will be:
>
> 1) Get a patch that throws a FutureDeprecationWarning when cmemcache
> is used + Change of the docs to note the coming deprecation of
> cm
Hi Xavier --
This is a question better asked on django-users -- django-developers
is for discussion of the development of Django itself, not usage
questions.
As a brief answer to your question, you'll want to take a look at
defining a custom intermediary model:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/de
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> I would like to get information about the Django webpages themselves.
All the code that runs djangoproject.com lives here:
http://code.djangoproject.com/browser/djangoproject.com
> I like the visual integration that is achieved between the Djang
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Sh4wn wrote:
> I want to refactor the QuerySet and other databases related API's,
> which adds an additional method of selecting records, and provides
> more control of what data you'll select, but probably is a bit more
> complex than the current API.
I don't wan
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Melodrama aside, as we've told you before, the docs clearly say that
> full_clean() isn't called by form.save(). The docs also give you the
> reason - backwards compatibility.
>
> I don't deny that it would be *really* nice to be able to
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> This is a bit abstract, but I'd like to bring up this idea, [...]
Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to engage on big abstract
discussions like this, so feel free to write whatever you want, but
don't count on my participation. I'm also
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Kevin howerton wrote:
> ps. I didn't really murder a hooker in vegas
This sort of "joke" is highly offensive, and isn't appropriate here.
Frankly, I don't think it's appropriate *anywhere*, but I actually
have some power to stop this sort of crap here, and I'm usi
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, schinckel wrote:
> It seems Safari (Mac, at least) is still plagued by what seems to be
> the behaviour described by http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/348 -
> when you have a ManyToMany, and have turned it into a javascript-
> enabled filter box pair (SelectFilte
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:17 AM, David Reynolds
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just thought I'd ask whether or not
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10917 would be able to make it into
> Django 1.2?
No. It's a feature addition, and we're well past feature freeze.
Sorry,
Jacob
--
You received this mes
1 - 100 of 1372 matches
Mail list logo
