Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

I confirm this is the reason it wasn't backported in the first place. Le lundi 7 décembre 2015 08:20:19 UTC-5, Tim Graham a écrit : > > I've done the backport. I think the only reason it wasn't done initially > is that there's no indication on the ticket that the issue was a regression. > > On

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

Thanks to everyone for the quick consensus, and to Tim for backporting it and fixing the docs before I could get around to it :) On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Tim Graham wrote: > Done in > https://github.com/django/django/commit/9c835990ea2911c06a877296fbc25157c1302e1d >

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

Done in https://github.com/django/django/commit/9c835990ea2911c06a877296fbc25157c1302e1d -- thanks for pointing it out. On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:42:09 AM UTC-5, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Tim Graham > wrote: > > I've done the

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > I've done the backport. I think the only reason it wasn't done initially is > that there's no indication on the ticket that the issue was a regression. For some reason we don't mention backporting of regression fixes in

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

I've done the backport. I think the only reason it wasn't done initially is that there's no indication on the ticket that the issue was a regression. On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:34:47 AM UTC-5, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > > Agreed the reasoning is sound. This is a major bug as far as I'm

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

Agreed the reasoning is sound. This is a major bug as far as I'm concerned and I'd like to see it backported. Thanks for bringing it up. Marc On 6 Dec 2015 1:05 p.m., "Shai Berger" wrote: > On Sunday 06 December 2015 14:52:08 Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > > On 6 déc. 2015, at

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

On Sunday 06 December 2015 14:52:08 Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > On 6 déc. 2015, at 10:49, James Bennett wrote: > > > > Thoughts? > > I don’t think anyone ever prevented a core dev who wanted to backport a > commit from doing so — unless it carried a risk of backwards >

Re: Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

> On 6 déc. 2015, at 10:49, James Bennett wrote: > > Thoughts? I don’t think anyone ever prevented a core dev who wanted to backport a commit from doing so — unless it carried a risk of backwards incompatibility, which doesn’t appear to be the case here. -- Aymeric.

Backporting ticket 25548 into 1.9.x

About two months ago, ticket #25548[1] was opened, pointing out that on an invalid form submission, FormView was calling form validation methods twice (what was actually happening was that the original form instance was discarded, a new one constructed with the same data, and the first access to