On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Cptn Obvious wrote:
> Are you kidding?
That sort of comment really isn't called for. It's fine to disagree
with a proposal, but if you can't take the time to respond in an adult
manner, please refrain from responding at all.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
--
You receive
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joe & Anne Tennies wrote:
> The thing is, we aren't trying to "scientifically correct" statistics.
> What we're aiming to say is, "This is not so wildly different as to be of
> any concern." We aren't looking for minor difference, but orders of
> magnitude differen
Doh, accidentally hit "send on my phone." Let me finish my thought:
I must say that I would personally LOVE to see this in 1.4 as some sort of
"preview" (akin to __future__) to give people a chance to get their
packages up and running on Python 3. This would also allow people to
document the porti
I was thinking the same thing. Make absolutely sure it works under 2.5-2.7
and even if there are a couple of issues or items not fully tested under
3.2.2 at least we will be moving in the right direction.
paul
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Joseph Tennies wrote:
> I must say that I would perso
I must say that I would personally LOVE to see this in 1.4 as some sort of
"preview" (akin to __future__) to give people a chance to get their packages up
and running on Python 3. This would also allow people to document the porting
process properly.
Obviously, this is dependent on the code pas
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On 28/11/11 20:33, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>> I plan on starting this next week. Is there a list somewhere of what
>> needs to get done? If not, I can make it, but obviously it'd be great
>> if that already existed.
>
> 1) Release blockers:
>
> h
I'll be there as well! Either set of dates works for me.
- Gabriel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/hCK2OwboH40J.
To post to t
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:36:53 PM UTC+1, Alex_Gaynor wrote:
>>
>> It isn't alreayd?!?! All file objects django exposes should be context
>> managers, I thought I added that to a base mixin class a while ago, but
>> apparently
In which Django release are we hoping to release this port? 1.4 or 1.5?
Ram.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/Y8-2tS9lth4J.
To po
The thing is, we aren't trying to "scientifically correct" statistics. What
we're aiming to say is, "This is not so wildly different as to be of any
concern." We aren't looking for minor difference, but orders of magnitude
difference.
If you are that worried about a <2% difference in speed, you pr
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Clelland wrote:
> > Unscientifically, trunk without the Python 3 patches runs 1.5% faster w/
> > SQLite, 0.6% faster w/ MySQL. (based on a sample size of 1 :) )
> >
>
> I know you put the word 'unscientificall
On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:36:53 PM UTC+1, Alex_Gaynor wrote:
> It isn't alreayd?!?! All file objects django exposes should be context
> managers, I thought I added that to a base mixin class a while ago, but
> apparently I didn't add it to the right thing.
>
Your memory serves you wel
On Dec 9, 4:36 pm, Tom Evans wrote:
> I know you put the word 'unscientifically' in there, but you can draw
> no conclusions from doing one run of each like that. See my reply
> earlier in the week on how to simply and easily do valid statistical
> testing.
>
> http://osdir.com/ml/django-develop
This was not my intention at all. The discussion on the ticket at
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10938 suggested opening a discussion
to prove a case for this. I was merely pointing out why I thought it might
be useful, since I ran into a case where this would've been convenient. I
ha
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Clelland wrote:
> Unscientifically, trunk without the Python 3 patches runs 1.5% faster w/
> SQLite, 0.6% faster w/ MySQL. (based on a sample size of 1 :) )
>
I know you put the word 'unscientifically' in there, but you can draw
no conclusions from doing one ru
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 11:39 pm, Ian Clelland wrote:
> > I now have Django passing its entire unit test suite with the MySQL and
> > SQLite backends, on Python 2.6.7 and Python 3.2.2
>
> Ian,
>
> Thanks for the comprehensive summary and eliminating those
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Cptn Obvious wrote:
> You guys didn't hear? He actually needs that, "right now". If you
> could just get that into trunk ASAP, that'd be great. I need a train
> car filled with gold bars, while you're at it.
This sort of thing isn't OK here, at all. Cut it out.
J
You guys didn't hear? He actually needs that, "right now". If you
could just get that into trunk ASAP, that'd be great. I need a train
car filled with gold bars, while you're at it.
On Dec 7, 6:47 pm, Imposter wrote:
> This is exactly what I've been struggling with today! Specifically the
> ord
Are you kidding?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For mor
On 09.12.2011, at 01:37, Jonas H. wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 11:39 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jonas H. wrote:
>>> 2.) I don't like wasting my time, so I won't write extensive documentation
>>> before the patch gets accepted
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's just not h
20 matches
Mail list logo