On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Simon Willison
wrote:
> I've been getting very excited about Node.js recently:
>
> http://simonwillison.net/2009/Nov/23/node/
>
> It's basically Twisted / Tornado but in JavaScript, and with the huge
> advantage that, because it's brand new, it doesn't have any le
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:15 AM, thebitguru wrote:
> Anyone?
>
> On Nov 23, 6:38 pm, thebitguru wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can I please get some feedback on this ticket? I am hoping that we
>> can get this in soon.
>>
>> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/
Echoing Alex's comment - responding to
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM, jedie wrote:
> On 25 Nov., 00:36, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> Why would it be? A datetime field isn't necessarily stored in UTC. It
>> uses datetime.now() because that will return the same time as
>> settings.TIME_ZONE.
>
> To i
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Johannes Dollinger
wrote:
> QuerySet.delete() currently sets the primary key and all nullable
> foreign keys (to deleted objects) of instances passed to signal
> handlers to None. No cache is updated.
>
> Model.delete() will do the same, but as these instances are
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM, thebitguru wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, Russ.
>
> I need to revise the patch, but I need some confirmation. I am not
> sure if it is worth determining what all the different databases
> support. I think optional parameters (allow_{inf,nan}=False) that let
> the
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> is it possible to introduce some new field type
> ShortTextField for that purpose, that will be by default
> `varchar(4000)` on Oracle and DB2 who supports long varchars, and
> `text` on other backends like it was before, excep
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Johannes Dollinger
wrote:
>
> Am 26.11.2009 um 03:47 schrieb Russell Keith-Magee:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Johannes Dollinger
>> wrote:
>>> QuerySet.delete() currently sets the primary key and all nullable
>>&g
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 01:44 -0600, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 01:28 -0600, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for taking the time to run all of those! All of
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:23 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> * Do you still get the same failures if you convert QueryTestCase into
>> a TransactionTestCase (i.e., change the import "from django.test
>&
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 21:56 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:23 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> >
>> >> * Do
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> Yes - this does help. The confirms my suspicion - the problem is that
>> the fixture loaded in FixtureTestCase.test_fixture_loading isn't being
>&g
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:49 AM, slango wrote:
> Hello all. I'm new to the Django community, but I have an itch that
> needs scratching and some time off to scratch it. The itch, of course,
> is composite primary and foreign keys in Django.
>
> I've started to speak with David Cramer on the issue.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Mario Briggs wrote:
> Russ,
>
>> With a different coat of paint, it might be more palatable. A name
>> like ShortTextField presupposes the storage implementation, but tells
>> you nothing about the appropriate usage. However, a different name -
>> something like Ge
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
>>> Hi Russell,
>>>
>>> is it possible to introduce so
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Saturday 28 November 2009 07:30:46 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> However - with that said, we're currently about 1 month out from
>> the deadline for adding new features to Django 1.2. The features
>> that a
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I started work replacing Django's if with the "smart-if" template tag
> by Chris Beaven ( http://www.djangosnippets.org/snippets/1350/ )
>
> Of course, it is not as simple as it looks...
>
> 4 issues:
>
> 1) Handling non-existent var
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Tim Graham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've worked on a few patches (and noticed some others) [#9502, #11782,
> #11800] to the documentation to add content-sensitive Sphinx markup to
> improve the structure of the docs, however, in #11800 Alex commented
> that "Jacob has been
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> Thanks for all your feedback. I think I've got everything covered except
> for a few questions about the API (see below).
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:13 AM, Tiago Samahá wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm starting in Django and want to know how the Django test
> environment works. I want to write a testing tool, similar
> zope.testbrowser.
> How can i start this? Where can i find information about this?
> I want to contribute wi
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Thibaud Morel l'Horset
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Syncdb will currently automatically load inital data fixtures if the
> files are there, even they are overwriting existing data in the db.
> This seems
> contrary to the principle stated in the syncdb documentation that it
> w
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 11:18:13 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> > 1) Handling non-existent variables
>> > ==
> So, I'm *now* suggesting that we convert everything mis
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:06 AM, SmileyChris wrote:
> Prompted by Luke's whitespace removal patch for django-contrib-
> messages, I thought I'd bring this up.
>
> The Django contributing guide says "Unless otherwise specified, follow
> PEP 8."
>
> Should new code use two lines between top level cla
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Mario Briggs wrote:
> Russ,
>
> I dont agree to the *it works* theory here - Ian rightly said 'If you
> ask me,
> anybody foolish enough to use a TextField as a primary key deserves
> what they get' and you agreed 'Your comment about foolishness is
> definitely co
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Tobias McNulty
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>>>
>>> I just converted some code, and the API seems good to me. I had one
>>> issue, which was the fact that I had some cod
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With the addition of the configurable email backend functionality,
> SMTPConnection is raising a DeprecationWarning. Shouldn't this be a
> PendingDeprecationWarning according to our procedure?
Yes, it should. That's an oversight on
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2009 14:36:42 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> > Also, I think it ought to be noted (along with a few other
>> > things) in the "Features deprecated in 1.2" section of
>> > docs
Hi all,
I've been looking at ticket #7052 again. I've got a draft patch up on
Trac, and I'd like feedback on the approach.
Previously, I've been advocating the approach of embedding queries
into the serialization syntax - essentially, interpreting dictionaries
in JSON (and equivalent in other for
Hi all,
Alex Gaynor's GSoC project to add multiple database support to Django
is on the final straight. The only piece of the puzzle that is left is
updating contrib.gis - but this hopefully won't require any major
changes outside of the gis tree itself.
Therefore, I'd like to call for feedback a
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2009 15:33:44 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> So, I've taken a different approach with this new patch. The new
>> approach is much simpler and more explicit than the last. Rather
>> than try
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> I just noticed a simple documentation bug. See the comment at the
> bottom of this page:
> http://github.com/alex/django/commit/aabfee1571d378dd3b7550573e900850d13e1b9b
You are correct. Thanks for that - I've made the chan
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Ryan K wrote:
> This message is in regards to the patch on Ticket 5390 (http://
> code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5390). I know that the period for
> changes is closed
The period for changes isn't closed at all - we're in the feature
development phase until Dec 22 [
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM, mattimust...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2:33 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been looking at ticket #7052 again. I've got a draft patch up on
>> Trac, and I'd like feedback on the appr
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM, mattimust...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2:56 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:46 AM, mattimust...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 4, 2:33 am, Ru
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Ryan K wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion but I sent the original link from my mobile
> handset which isn't great for copying/pasting/etc.
In future, could I please ask you to consider that when you send a
message to django-developers, it arrives in over 5000 mailbox
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Simon Willison wrote:
> On Dec 3, 4:10 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> Alex Gaynor's GSoC project to add multiple database support to Django
>> is on the final straight. The only piece of the puzzle that is left is
>> updating contri
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> IMHO, it's best to leave entirely in the hands of the end user. By
> that reasoning, The current behaviour (1) is actually the right
> solution, along with some documentation explaining the problem and
> some p
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Nan wrote:
>
>> 1) Ignore the problem. Admin works on the default database, but
>> nowhere else. This is certainly less than ideal, but it would be
>> sufficient for master/slave setups.
>>
>> 2) Use a separate admin deployment for each database. We add a 'using'
>
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> Is there a page where one can find a quick summary of the proposed API?
>
> I have some concerns about implementing partitioning through the admin, but
> I expect there's something I'm missing.
>
> For those who haven't been, following the c
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:03 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 15:33:44 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> How easy would it be to fix this? If you used a list of string values,
>> instead o
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Ryan K wrote:
>
> I hope I'm not missing something glaringly obvious but the idea would
> be that an option in the Django instance's settings would enable this
> feature (or maybe as a decorator for each model or explicitly giving
> the model a special manager).
St
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> The very first "Requirement"/ideal feature on the wiki page reads:
>
> "Different models/applications living on different databases, for
> example a 'blog' application on db1 and a forum application on db2.
> This should include the ability t
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Yuri Baburov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Database -> Model.Manager -> Queryset.
> Save -> Model -> Database
>
> How about making a default Manager that's now "model.Manager" to be a
> setting to override?
> Like, calling current Manager a DefaultManager, and making "Manage
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Johannes Dollinger
wrote:
>
> Am 05.12.2009 um 06:36 schrieb Russell Keith-Magee:
>> [...]
>>> What if the admin was instead fixed
>>> by providing facilities for the more general case outlined above?
>>>
>>> W
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I'll take another look at this patch next week to make sure I haven't
> missed anything. Assuming I don't find anything new and interesting
> (and assuming you're happy with my response on the API issues),
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> The idea of using a function that returns a single string but does
>> other processing is a novel approach, and one that I hadn't
>> consider
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 5:35 AM, Ryan K wrote:
>>
>> I hope I'm not missing something glaringly obvious but the idea would
>> be that an option in the Django instance's settings would enable this
>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
>> Patch
>> =
>>
>> Review would be welcome, especially as I'm ill at the moment. I'm only
>> coding because the boredom of doing nothi
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> As best as I can make out, you're addressing the problem that I've
>> said we aren't addressing - that of presenting a useful end-user API
&
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Waldemar Kornewald
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
&
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Gordon A wrote:
> Apologies if this isn't the right forum for this question.
It's unclear if you're in the right place. Django-dev is for
discussing the development of Django itself; django-users is for
general user queries. Generally, if you're unsure, django-user
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:16 AM, subs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oh, I see from a later message by Alex that Meta.using was removed.
>
> -1!
There's a very good reason why this was removed. It isn't a model
level property. Consider - what if contrib.auth.User had a Meta
using='foo' property? If this we
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't grant that proposition at all. The admin interface serves as a
>> working example demonstrating that you don't need to use settin
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Simon Willison wrote:
> On Dec 5, 4:20 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> Trust me - I don't want to do mindless busy work. However, we need to
>> have some sort of answer for the admin interface - Django's admin is a
>> big se
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> * Why have all the tests migrated to the Django system tests? This is
>> a contrib app - the tests should be internal to the app.
>
> They were moved to
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sunday 06 December 2009 00:56:56 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> > Really? Files definitely seem to be more on the "storage" side
>> > of things:
>> >
>> > http://code.djangoproject.com/br
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> However, I'm also willing to admit that personal preference is a
>> factor here. We may just need to push this up for a BDFL judgement. I
>>
Hi all (and especially Jacob),
So - this is a call for any interested parties to express their
opinions, followed (hopefully quickly) by a BDFL judgement.
For those that haven't been following the the django-dev discussion
around ticket #4604: session-based messages are nearing trunk ready
status
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> However, I'm also willing to admit that personal preference is a
>> factor here. We may just need to push this up for a BDFL judgement. I
>>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> 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 n
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> 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
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> Hey all,
> I was wondering if I could do anything to streamline applying
> sprint-created patches.
>
> Obviously, I can do triaging and provide feedback on patches. Can
> I be blessed to say "Ready for checkin"?
>
> What else can I do? I
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Johannes Dollinger
wrote:
> Ping.
>
> Since it's a non-trivial patch and there has been (almost) no
> feedback, is it save to assume that #7539 is not in scope for 1.2 ?
At this point, I'd have to say yes. We've still got a lot of items on
the high priority list, #
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at new ideas to try - if someone trusted at the sprint (such
>> as yourself) were to take the role of developing a merge-ready git
>> bra
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> I was thinking more of having one person at the sprint to take the
>> role of integrator - that is, the patches still go up on trac, but one
>> trus
cked the idea around the office here, and we came up with two
other options:
* Natural key: on the grounds that we're picking a natural way to
refer to the object.
* Stable key: on the grounds that this whole problem exists because
the primary key *isn't* stable over syncdb calls, and we'
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Simon Willison wrote:
> This made it to the 1.2 feature list:
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ReplacingGetAbsoluteUrl
>
> If we want this in 1.2, it could be as simple as merging the get_url /
> get_url_path methods in to the base Model class, rolling a few u
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martin Omander wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> How about letting Django users run unit tests without creating a new
> test database?
>
> To use Django's built-in unit test harness, you have to have database
> creation privileges. Not all web hosts give users those privileges.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, thebitguru wrote:
> OK, here is what I have gathered about the databases listed under
> DATABASE_ENGINE [4].
>
> Postgresql 8: Supports all three, +/-Inf and NaN [0]
> MySQL: No support for either NaN or Inf [1]
> sqlite3: No support for either NaN or Inf [2]
> Ora
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Jonas Obrist wrote:
> Hi django-developers!
>
> I have two things which bug me about custom 404's.
>
> First:
>
> Why isn't there a setting to define a custom 404 template? In Python one
> of the principles is "explicit is better than implicit", a file put in a
> di
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've now addressed everything in Russell's last e-mail, I think, so I
> think I'm pretty much good to go, apart from:
>
> 1) my last change rewrote a lot of IfParser, which was the heart of
> the patch. That means it probably needs lo
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM, wrote:
>> Django allows you to define a custom test runner. Copy
>> django.tests.simple.run_tests() into your own code, removing the calls
>> to create and destroy the test database. Then set TEST_RUNNER in your
>> settings file to point at the new runner.
> Hello!
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM, wrote:
>> Django allows you to define a custom test runner. Copy
>> django.tests.simple.run_tests() into your own code, removing the calls
>> to create and destroy the test database. Then set TEST_RUNNER in your
>> settings file to point at the new runner.
> Hello!
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Mario Briggs wrote:
> I was too harsh on the GenericKeyField. How about GenericKeyField
> (length=x). I think the reason i put length in there is obvious, but i
> can explain if need be.
Well, you may have to, because the reason that it doesn't need a
length is als
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> 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.
> C
Hi all,
I've just uploaded RC1 patches to two tickets.
Firstly, #7052 - Fixing auth and contenttype serialization. Since the
most recent patch, I've added documentation, I've made some tweaks to
ensure backwards compatibility, and improved the dependency evaluation
process on serialization. I've
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>> wrote:
>>> There's overlap, but it isn't necessarily a perfect match.
>>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:15 AM, mattimust...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 11, 11:21 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just uploaded RC1 patches to two tickets.
>>
>> Firstly, #7052 - Fixing auth and contenttype serializat
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> I'm wondering if we should remove LegacyFallbackStorage and merge its
> functionality into FallbackStorage.
>
> If anyone manually settings MESSAGE_STORAGE =
> '...LegacyFallbackStorage', his or her code will break in 1.4.
>
> It's not a big
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> 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 k
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> +1 from me too on the timeline, but why the PendingDeprecationWarning?
> I don't see the point, there isnt exactly a limit to how long
> something can be deprecated.
PendingDeprecationWarning lets us introduce the change gradually.
* Pe
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Suno Ano wrote:
> What do folks think about shipping http://code.google.com/p/django-rosetta
> with Django? Enabling it per default even? imho that app is totally
> worth being shipped with Django per default.
The question you need to answer is: "Does the Django p
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:17 PM, yummy_droid wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wanted to design a system that would keep inventory data for items.
> The items themselves are different enough, that they don't conform to
> a simple model.
Django-developers is for discussing the development of Django itself.
Gener
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:36 AM, James Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
>> We need a section in our release notes about dropping support for
>> Python 2.3. I was trying to write it, and I wanted to say "as
>> announced in such & such a place", but I can't actua
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM, James Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:15 PM, DULMANDAKH Sukhbaatar
> wrote:
>> Please note that python 2.4 is default in RHEL5.
>
> I'm aware of that, and concerns about RHEL were noted when I
> originally proposed the roadmap. But that's Red Hat's pro
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:16 PM, "Sean O'Connor"
> wrote:
>
>> In regard to the deferred fields option, I'll let Jacob speak for
>> his view but I've approached such functionality as "nice to have"
>> for the patch since its not critical to the
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Leaf wrote:
> I know that you are all busy, but it has been over two weeks and there
> has been no activity related to ticket #12292 (render_to_response
> method on AdminSite and ModelAdmin) either on the list or on the Trac.
> Has anyone looked at the ticket? What
Hi all,
This is a second and final call for feedback on the multidb branch.
Barring any objections or the discovery of major problems, my
intention is to commit this early next week, hitting the alpha 1
feature deadline by the skin of our collective teeth :-)
There has been one big change since
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Leaf wrote:
> Okay, I can live with that. The "alternate template loader" system in
> #6262 looks pretty nice. Unfortunately, I have already put a lot of
> effort into writing a Jinja2 layer for Django (named, cleverly enough,
> Djinja2) using the current, 1.1 temp
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:41 AM, Brett Hoerner wrote:
> I'm not sure if 1.2 intended to fully support read-slaves, but I'll
> post this quick anyway as we've just run into it while trying to
> upgrade at DISQUS.
>
> You might think that having support for multiple databases implies
> that using a
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to invite everyone to review the patch that contains most of Marc
> Garcia's i18n-improvements GSoC branch. The latest patch is attached to
> ticket 7980 [1] or can be found in my i18n branch on Github [2].
I will preface
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:37 PM, hejsan wrote:
> I know this has been discussed and in most threads I've found it has
> been disregarded with comments like: "Just use a 3rd party app" or
> "just use the sites-framework" but I think there are definetly
> advantages to having this an included featur
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Simon Willison wrote:
> I've uploaded the patch for adding signing and signed cookies to
> Django:
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12417/ticket12417.diff
>
> You can also read the documentation directly on my GitHub branch:
>
> http://github.com
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Marty Alchin wrote:
> ...
>> django.contrib.auth.load_backend()
>> django.core.files.storage.get_storage_class()
>> django.template.loader.find_template_loader()
>> django.db.load_backend()
>
> Also, django.c
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Tobias McNulty wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11843
>
> This is a simple fix to a rather bothersome problem; if you need to do
> anything with those hidden inputs in JavaScript there's no way to uniquely
> identify them without extending the widget
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Simon Willison wrote:
> I've made some changes based on the feedback in this thread:
>
> http://github.com/simonw/django/commit/802952bbb8b763e65ee545c6a8f39524b20e147c
> "Use sha('signer' + secret_key + salt) to derive the key for use in
> the
> signature() method
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Brett Hoerner wrote:
> On Dec 19, 6:48 am, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> You're right - read slaves are an intended common use case
>
> I know the branch landed but I'd like to mention another issue
> regarding read-slaves, hope
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Michael Manfre wrote:
> With multiple database defined, what is the expected behavior for
> syncdb and the other db related commands?
The management commands all work the same way under multidb - they
only ever work on a single database at a time. If you don't spe
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:29 AM, James Bennett wrote:
> I've previously brought up some issues with the removal of certain
> options from the choices on localflavor's USStateField[1] as a result
> of ticket #8425[2] and, with feature freeze for 1.2 approaching and
> perhaps more time soon to be av
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 11:44 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> This is completely backwards compatible as long as we keep
>> "STATE_CHOICES" to the same subset that exists today.
>
> Yikes, that's reall
201 - 300 of 2850 matches
Mail list logo
