On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Vinay Sajip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are philosophical differences between Django and Jinja
> templating about how much power there should be in the templating
> engine. Django's philsophy is to keep the power to the minimum
> required - "templates are no
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is: is it worth continuing this web-scraping and analysis
> and potentially extending it to other reference mechanisms I am unaware
> of? I don't know whether the current redirection will eventually cause
> the
Hi folks --
Following up from my RFC earlier this week, I've posted the new
release process
(http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-process/) and
1.1 schedule (http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap).
I've made a couple changes from the drafts:
* I've more clearly
Hi Richard --
What you've described is documented behavior for PostgreSQL (try
googling for "commands ignored until end of transaction block") --
Postgres does not alow *any* commands in a transaction after a
database error; you have to commit or rollback first.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~--
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Simon Willison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose django.forms should include a SafeForm class, which is a
> subclass of Form that includes built-in protection against CSRF. I
> imagine the interface looking something like this:
Yes, indeed -- we should do thi
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:07 PM, elliot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I set up nightly builds of ubuntu packages for Hardy (8.04) and
> Intrepid (8.10) of django trunk.
Thanks for this. I just read about PPAs and had wanted to set one up
myself; awesome that I don't have to any more :)
Jacob
--~
Hi folks --
I've created the 1.0.X branch
(http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/branches/releases/1.0.X),
which means the trunk is now open for features. Please read
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-process/ for
more information about what this branch is. For the record,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 1:22 PM, mihasya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey, is anybody actually tackling the database scale stuff Cal "joked"
> about in his keynote? I'd like to work on it, but don't want to spin
> my wheels if the core team is already working on it.
If you'll search the archives
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:33 AM, varikin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oracle is free for non production use.
That's not what we mean when we say we don't have access to Oracle...
> Actually installing and configuring Oracle is a different matter if
> you are not familiar with it,
... this is.
>
Hey Bob --
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submitted a possible low-risk security issue about 2 weeks ago to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and have not received a response.
Damn, I'm sorry about that! I don't see your email in the security
inbox anywhere, so it's possib
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, this just highlights why it's important to have a policy
> for acknowledging receipt of a security vuln. If I knew I should
> expect a reply regardless, I probably would have re-sent this a week
> ago.
Yup; I'll add somet
Howdy folks --
It's that time of year again: PyCon 2009 is accepting proposals for
talks and tutorials. PyCon 2009 will be held in Chicago, Illinois from
March 27 - 29; there will be two tutorial days before and four
development sprint days after.
PyCon has special meaning to Django: we first de
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Narshe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So my question is how do I correctly install the MySQLdb adapter? Or
> more specifically, can my current setup be saved? (Go easy on me, I
> just started with Django 2 days ago) Thanks bunches in advance ^^
You'd be better off a
Hey Jessie --
See ticket #6791. It's got a well-written, working implementation; it
didn't make it into 1.0 because of time constraints. It'll almost
certainly make it into 1.1.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not really sure, nor am I the one to make such a decision, but I
> wonder if perhaps something like this hasn't been included because of
> issues with Google's licensing.
That's exactly why: Google Maps aren't free t
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:06 AM, patrickk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, when using "order_with_respect_to", one should be able to order
> the inlines (stacked & tabular).
Yup, this has been on the todo list for quite some time. We even
discussed it at PyCon a couple years ago as we kicked o
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think decoupling messages from contrib.auth is a worthy step to
> making auth a little bit more reusable.
Agreed. However, doing this in a backwards-compatible manner is going
to be tricky.
> By doing so, however, Django
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, andybak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember seeing a couple of places where some extra template blocks
> could help with extending the admin (object-tools springs to mind).
> What are the pro's and con's of adding a sprinkling of new blocks?
There really aren'
I'm with Steve::
{% for %} ... {% default %} .. {% endfor %}
... seems best.
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
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Joey Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch itself is [...] potentially very helpful.
How so? Be specific: we don't add things to Django because of their
"potential" use; we add things because of actually problems. What,
exactly, would this patch let you
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM, bo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While trying out a new WSGI handler, that should run fine in the usual
> command line "runserver", i noticed that the get_commands() in
> managment.__init__ does not look for commands in the top level
> directory.
This is by design
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM, bo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so i suppose you don't consider "django" to be the "master project"
> then? :)
Again, as far as the code is concerned, there's no such thing as a
"project" at all. Apps, sure — there's an app loader, an app cache,
and eventually the
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:38 AM, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only major issue I have encountered is
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8882
Thanks for the pointer; I'd agree this should get in.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
Hi folks --
A few administrative notes on 1.1:
* I've frozen the feature proposal page (this was supposed to happen
11/7 but I was too busy). Folks who missed proposing their pet feature
are going to have to wait until 1.2.
* I'll be reviewing all the features today and tomorrow, and I'll be
as
Hi folks --
I've reorganized the 1.1 feature list
(http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Features) and added "short
codes" so we can have a quick shorthand as we review features.
I've also reviewed most of the features on the list. I'll talk about the
review process -- and how y'all can c
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Guilherme M. Gondim (semente)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Django Project accepts patch for the doc translations? I saw that the
> language is provided in URLs of official documentation
> (docs.djangoproject.com*/en/*dev/).
I'm working on the infrastructure we nee
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to ask committers and anyone else to send me their own rankings.
Also: There's no real need for everyone to score everything. In fact,
that'll probably be information overload.
If yo
Hi folks --
We held a set of sprints leading up to 1.0, and I really think those
helped get the release out on time. So let's do it again!
We've got less of a crazy schedule this time around, so I don't think
we need *quite* as many sprints as last time. I'd like to hold at
least one each in Dec
Hi Frank --
It's hard for me to figure out how to answer this: if you've got a
problem with my leadership skills, I don't really see how anything I
say makes much of a difference. Frankly, your tone is completely
inappropriate and I feel I'm enforcing absurdly out-of-line behavior
simply by respo
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also keep in mind that work has been done, but as I haven't had a lot of
> spare time to continue it (attempt #3?). It's a very complex problem as
> well, like Jacob mentioned. You have to deal w/ the legacy use of single
>
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Karen Tracey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other alternative is building 1.0.2 from 'traditionally' from the
> current 1.0.X branch contents. So 1.0.2 would have a handful of fixes in
> addition to the missing gis files. The fixes that have gone in are small &
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:50 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://github.com/dcramer/django-compositepks/tree/master#
Cool; I'll take a look tomorrow. Do you want me to make changes in my
own tree, or would you rather patches back to you?
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~--
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Ludvig Ericson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are bugs. Django isn't thread-safe, and we know that.
Um...
That's just not true. At one point (two years ago?) it wasn't, but
these days Django's deployed all over the place in mutli-threaded
situations. If it w
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Matthew D. Hancher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, I decided to do a bit of profiling to keep the conversation moving.
I did too; I took a stab at measure the raw speed of calling signals.
My code's at http://gist.github.com/25892; the output looks like:
Nothi
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahh. I suppose that makes sense. Is there any reason it doesn't show
> them by default?
Because they're hard to read and scary for folks not familiar with
Python. "I just typed this one thing and got twenty lines of error
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been trying to dump some data to fixtures for the last couple
> days, and I've ran into various problems each time. It's been quite
> difficult each time to determine the problems, as there's no useful
> tracebacks on
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Julien Phalip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that this is likely to be a tricky/boring task and that it is
> probably low-priority since we're on the way to 1.1, but I thought at
> least I'd ask: Is there any plan in the short/mid term to upgrade
> Trac?
Eve
Hi folks --
I've posted a draft of the 1.1 roadmap, incorporating the feedback
gathered here over the last week:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Roadmap
Discuss.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Hey Malcolm --
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not so sure the final phases of that process worked out smoothly. I
> thought there'd be a brief round, at least within the maintainers group
> (and maybe this thread is it) where we reconcile the
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, so I'm going to add the "lots of +0" stuff to the draft, and the
> note about ORM aggregation,
that should have read "ORM identity map".
OK, draft updated; hopefully
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Bob Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would volunteer to work on this (I voted +1), though I guess you
> need a committer to back it up.
As long as someone's willing to review it -- which I don't think will
be hard -- having someone volunteering to do the cod
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:05 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know personally myself, and several others who expressed
> opinions, wanted more than just an exclude option, but an include-only
> option.
That's part of this proposal, as the previous discussions indicated.
No need to
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:50 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok with all of that being said. I've checked the ticket (once again),
> and there doesn't seem to be any API proposed for fields as include-
> only.
>From the ticket description:
> We should also provide the inverse of hi
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Julien Phalip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could not find any mention of this in the Version 1.1 features or
> roadmap. I guess it'll have to wait till next release. Could you
> please confirm?
It's a pretty small change with no real backwards-incompatibility
im
Hi folks --
I've updated the 1.1 feature list
(http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.1Features) with the
discussion from the draft. If I've missed anything let me know, or if
it's an obvious error just fix the page.
The bug thing we need now is to determine who's going to work on which
fea
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Johannes Dollinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm aware that #7806 propably does too much at once. I'd like to hear
> what's in scope for 1.1 and what you believe doesn't belong in django.
I'm actually pretty happy with the general idea you've taken here --
dja
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, the page is now editable.
Yeah, that's my bad. Thanks for fixing it, Alex.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi folks --
I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss.
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-develo
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know the GIS stuff is bound to 2.4+, but other than this, is there
> any particularly compelling reason to drop 2.3 support other than the
> annoyance factor for 1.1? I'm just not convinced that the first minor
> r
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:14 AM, Ambrish Bhargava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now I am facing problem in unicode. There are few test cases in
> regression test suite which are expecting unicode results. But with
> this backend, unicode is not supported and hence I am getting
> failures. Is there a
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Kegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there an active effort in working on the docs?
The fundamental rule of software is that the documentation always
needs improvement; django.contrib.comments is no exception.
Patches welcome!
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:05 AM, AcidTonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly its as simple as NULLing out the id fields when the object
> gets deleted. Thats all I want.
Then write a patch and we'll consider it like we do everything else.
That's the way open source gets produced: people who n
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> == Conclusion ==
>
> At the moment, once you've factored everything in, I think 'view
> middleware' + template tag is the way to go, with some more custom
> solution for login CSRF. The SafeForm ends up having an unwieldly
> API, which means it
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 9:06 AM, David Cramer wrote:
> The first of which, is the pre_save method. Originally we had been
> using get_db_pre_value (which also is passed on to the save method),
> and this seems to make a lot more sense than pre_save's
> implementation. I'm not 100% sure which one
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Since sending email can block for an arbitrarily long time, I'd like
> to make it so that when an exception occurs in
> django.core.handlers.base, it calls our mail_admins rather than
> django's stock mail_admins.
>
> With an eye towards bac
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Maluku wrote:
> So how about the legal side of it? Do I have to include the source
> code for Django in every distribution, since my work is derived from
> your documentation or is just a link enough?
A link is fine.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~-
Guys, watch it. Colin and gert, y'all are allowed to disagree, but the
tone here is deteriorating and that's not okay. Keep things
professional, please.
To get back to the original question, you can do this right now with a
bit of custom admin code. Take a look at
``ModelAdmin.has_change_permissi
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM, christian schilling
wrote:
> mybe changelist views should not check permissions at all, by default.
If you think about this a bit you'll realize why this is a very, very
bad idea. I can think of at least three reasons.
> i solved this, as you said, by using a M
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:38 AM, gert wrote:
> 1) On a technical level there is a design flaw in the fact that the
> ADD and DELETE permissions depend on the CHANGE permission.
Really, no, there's not. The fact that you disagree with the design
doesn't mean it's a "design flaw." Put it this way
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Ramiro Morales wrote:
> What directions do [the rest of the] core devs think should this
> take?. I could try to work on getting things in shape
> so it can approach a ready state for 1.1 a intially
> planned.
I'd like to see this moved into an external app so tha
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> into trunk ASAP
#8138 is nearly done; there are still a couple of tricky issues to
work out first. T
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> (There was a mini-sprint on Saturday? I missed the memo -- where are these
> things being announced or was this just impromptu?)
It was really just a handful of us in Lawrence getting together for
the afternoon; those who were in #django-de
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> OK, so that sounds like one vote for leaving things as they are for
> doctests, that is with no rolled-back transaction cleaning up after them.
Yeah, I agree. doctests are the 80% testing tool; if you need more
control, that's what formal t
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I have now finished work on ticket #3566 - adding aggregations to Django's
> ORM.
Woohoo! Congratulations, and many thanks to you, Nicolas, and all the
others who helped out.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Hey Malcolm --
Sorry if I missed some steps on this one; I've been working on it
pretty hard for the past few days and thought it was done (though I've
already noticed an oversight with the password change link... grr...).
I should point out that there is docs
(http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/d
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Harryanto Ie wrote:
> i've looked the django documentation and there are
> solution for deploying django project into web server, but
> when i took those solution and implement to my web server
> (in this case, i use apache), there are several settings
> inside ht
Hi Kevin --
Just like your first question, this one also belongs on django-users.
Please direct your questions over there.
Thanks.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
T
Hi folks --
Building on some work James did, I've cleaned up formfield_for_dbfield
to make field overrides easier in the admin.
I'm pretty happy with the approach, but honestly I don't use the admin
all that hard so I'm not 100% confidant that the design is perfect. So
I'd love a quick review of
> Because I deleted that object. Delete method should be non-reversible
> (except in transactions) like "del" statement in Python. Or anybody
> knows any reason, why it should be reversible?
You didn't delete the object. That'd be spelled ``del instance``. You
called a method called ``delete`` on
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Brian Rosner wrote:
> I think this definitely the right direction. An outstanding admin
> ticket that this is touching very heavily on is #3987. You've done a
> really good job making the right abstractions. I went a step further
> and figured this should be inclu
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Flavio Curella
wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more granular to allow the overrides on the field name
> basis? something like:
Hm, I think that's a separate issue: the goal of the patch is to
easily make "mixins" providing custom widgets (etc.) easier. There's
already a
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Peter2108 wrote:
> Not quite sure if this is the place to post this. Anyway, in the
> module template.loader.tags the do_extends function parses a tokens
> content like this:bits = token.contents.split() which does not
> work correctly if the
> extends path h
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, catsclaw wrote:
> Well, it seems to me that makes for an *extremely* tight coupling
> between the model and the view.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your perception is misguided. Forms have
no dependancy upon models, nor do models on forms, nor must views use
fo
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Matt Boersma wrote:
> That's an excellent question for the django-users list. Here we
> discuss the development of django itself.
Bit hasty on the trigger there, Matt. I asked Chris for the specific
problems he's running into; he's responding to me. I appreciate
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Jacob Fenwick wrote:
> 1. Gain a deeper understanding of the system of contributing to Django.
> 2. Checkin a patch that I've attached to a ticket, preferably to all
> versions of Django.
Great -- we're happy to have the help!
I'm assuming from your specific ques
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Jacob Fenwick wrote:
> 1. By svnmerge I assume you mean this program:
> http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py
Yeah, that's right; it takes the gruntwork out of merging between SVN
branches. IIRC it's built into SVN 1.5; I've just not bothered
learning if I
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Vinicius Mendes wrote:
> So I decided to write a new messages app and it works very well, the only
> problem is the django.core.context_processors.auth.
Yeah, this processor has a bunch of bugs in it. I think Malcolm and I
figured out that there's something like f
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Tai Lee wrote:
> I'd like to bring attention to several tickets that have been sitting
> unreviewed for 3-5 months.
I'm just about to head out, but if nobody else gets to these before
tomorrow morning I'll review 'em then.
Thanks!
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM, smcoll wrote:
> How about requiring that any urls.py file at least have a
> corresponding __init__.py before processing it?
That's not really something Django can do: if you don't have an
__init__.py, the urls.py can't be imported to make the check. In other
word
Hi Zack --
The standard way of doing this is with multiple settings files,
leaving it up to the application server (e.g. mod_wsgi) to switch
between them (i.e. dev boxes load ``dev_settings.py``; prod loads
``prod_settings``.)
Reading your email I can't tell if you'd just like to have this
docum
Hi folks --
By now I think it's obvious to everyone that we're behind on the 1.1 release. We
(the core devs) have talked it over, and we're going to revise the
plan for 1.1. In a nutshell:
* Model validation will be dropped for 1.1 (it'll ship in 1.2 instead).
* All other "must-haves" will be m
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:37 AM, rihad wrote:
> Unless someone kindly proves me wrong, I really do think trailing
> slashes in the URL should be optional,
As Russ already said -- did you read his post? -- this is already *up
to you*. If you want trailing slashes to be optional:
1. Set APPEND_SL
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM, rihad wrote:
> Nothing, really, It was just a design suggestion.
I think that's the basic hang-up you're running into here: we don't
really do that kind of development. Every single piece of code in
Django exists because someone -- often lots of people -- have a
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:08 PM, smoluf wrote:
> I think there is a way to remedy my complaint without destroying any
> of the current behavior that you outlined (and without sacrificing
> performance).
See, the reason I closed your ticket as wontfix is because I don't
think there is. That is,
Hi Jim --
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jim Garrison wrote:
> Two weeks ago I reported a security-related bug to
> secur...@djangoproject.com, but nobody has replied to my message. I'd
> like to discuss the bug publicly, but before I do I want to make sure my
> message has actually been recei
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Petar Marić wrote:
> Will Django be participating in the Google SoC event this year?
We'll be applying, yes.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers
Hey Ramiro --
Sounds great -- we could use the help getting bugs closed for 1.1!
I can be available some of Monday 3/23 and most of Tuesday 3/24; I'll
make a point of being in #django-sprint whenever I'm available.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this m
Hey Gary --
Looks good to me. My only comment would be that I'd move the docs into
howto/ instead of topics/. Other than that, I'm happy with this code
as is. Malcolm's pickier than I am, though, so you might want to see
what he's got to say :P
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> My proposal is not necessarily to get this in Django 1.1, but to get
> it in trunk at the very least. I'm selfishly motivated by my own
> project to get this done ASAP, so I'm very happy to do the
> development.
Like James, I'm concerned
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Dan Watson wrote:
> Wouldn't this be a backwards-incompatible change at this point? It
> would clash with any model fields named "update".
Technically, yes. However, if we interpret the backwards-compatibility
requirement this strictly it basically prevents us ad
Hi folks --
Quick reminder that Django 1.1 beta is due to drop Friday. This means
feature freeze -- any feature additions not completed by the beta
timeline won't make it into 1.1. Realistically that means that any
feature addition not already "close" to done should probably be
tabled.
We've got
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> I propose adding the two [CSRF] middleware (view and response) to the
> MIDDLEWARE
> settings [...]
I'm a somewhat reluctant +0 on this -- the content re-writing that the
CSRF middleware does has always rubbed me the wrong way. For one,
it'll
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> So, if the template tag wasn't hard enough to write, it's not helpful?
Um. That's not what I read from what Luke's saying.
> I'm not sure how I missed the tests, though. I think I was just
> looking at the regression tests for the built-in ta
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> Digging through the (huge) 1.1 milestone list a bit, the following
> seem to be closer to improvements than bugs (IMO). If you have any
> favorites in here, they should probably be looked at for last-minute
> additions to 1.1 beta, or they may
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Bob Thomas wrote:
> One trend I noticed was that there were quite a few GIS tickets that
> aren't really in that grey area at all. Without a champion, they seem
> most likely to miss 1.1 (assuming contrib apps are subject to the same
> strict definition of "bug" a
Hi folks --
It's that time of year again: Google's announced the Summer of Code 2009, and
Django is again one of the participating projects. Jannis Leidel will be
running things this year, and I'll be backing him up.
For those who aren't aware: Summer of Code is Google's program to pay students
Hi folks --
I promise this one won't be as long as the previous one!
If you'd like to mentor a Summer of Code project, you can apply through
Google's web app right now. Please also add your name here:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SummerOfCode2009
However, the quality of mentors is even mo
Hi folks --
I met with James earlier and reviewed the outstanding list of stuff
for 1.1 beta. We agreed it'd be best to give everyone -- me included
:) -- a couple extra days, so we're going to push the 1.1 beta to
Monday, probably around noon US Central time.
Have a good, productive weekend,
J
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Justin Lilly wrote:
> Just rounding up a list of tickets I've worked on which could use
> another pair of eyes.
Thanks; I've reviewed 'em. Note that a couple are already marked for
1.1, which means we'll get to 'em between the beta and the final.
Right now we're
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> Kind of disappointed that none of the other "commit at will" people have
> chimed in on this one (Adrian? Jacob? Russell? Bueller?...) I suspect
> I'm going to lose, but I'd genuinely like to know that there's something
> more than apat
901 - 1000 of 1372 matches
Mail list logo
