Has anyone else had a chance to take a look at this update yet? Is it ok? If so, can someone please commit?
Please let me know if more is needed. Thanks, Ryan On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Ryan Boggs <rmboggs.obsd.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Toni Mueller <openbsd-po...@oeko.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Ryan, >> >> On Sun, 13.09.2009 at 09:23:45 -0700, Ryan Boggs >> <rmboggs.obsd.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:32:48PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: >>> > The MESSAGE file has a reference to Django 1.0, which is not >>> > suitable for Django 1.1. >>> I will fix this and repost later today. Since there are no 1.1 >>> specific docs, I will reference dev if that is ok. >> >> that would be ok for me. I'd like to point out that the docs are >> _quite_ different for 1.0 and dev, the former being MUCH less >> extensive, and also wrong/incomplete with respect to the current API. >> >>> Both of the 1.0.3 and 1.1 updates came well after the 4.6 ports lock so >>> I don't know if there was anything we could have done to get it in in >>> 4.6. >> >> Sorry, then. >> >> I thought these two releases had come in time, but didn't closely >> monitor the ports tree locking and unlocking. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> --Toni++ >> >> > > Attached is an updated diff with the edit to the MESSAGE file. Please > let me know if more changes are needed. > > Out of curiosity, should I remove the section in the MESSAGE file that > talks about upgrading from version 0.96 to 1.0? It helps those who > need to upgrade but as it was mentioned before, most of the projects > nowadays are for 1.0+. > > -- > Thanks, > Ryan >
django11.diff
Description: Binary data
