Re: Order of INSTALLED_APPS

[Stefano Crosta]

Aymeric, Ramiro, Florian,

thanks a lot for your answers!

Indeed there is some (slightly hidden :D ) documentation! 
And it has improved since 1.5, I now see! - I remembered reading something 
before, but I couldn't find them anymore when I wrote yesterday's message.

My proposal would then be to simply add another box to the 
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/#installed-apps to say 
"order matters" once more and link the other two pages for translations and 
templates.
*if you think this would* help I could do it as well as a ticket. To save 
everybody's time no answer will mean it's not worth it!

(PS. Also please fully disregard my momentary lapse of reason concerning 
`sets` in the settings - I don't know what got into me)

thanks&best,
Stefano


On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:29:49 PM UTC+2, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 3:41:15 PM UTC+2, Ramiro Morales wrote:
>>
>> For translations, we have such documentation already: 
>>
>>
>> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.5/topics/i18n/translation/#how-django-discovers-translations
>>  
>>
>
> For templates too: 
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/templates/api/#django.template.loaders.app_directories.Loader--
>  but I agree it's somewhat hidden ;) 
>
> Florian
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Order of INSTALLED_APPS

[Aymeric Augustin]

2013/8/13 Stefano Crosta 

> My proposal would then be to simply add another box to the
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/settings/#installed-apps to say
> "order matters" once more and link the other two pages for translations and
> templates.
> *if you think this would* help I could do it as well as a ticket. To save
> everybody's time no answer will mean it's not worth it!
>

Yes, please file one, and include a link to this discussion.

-- 
Aymeric.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Jacob Kaplan-Moss]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Chris Wilson  wrote:

> I would love to see support extended for a bit longer after deprecation.


This is a matter of resources; we struggle to maintain security releases
against 3 simultaneous releases (e.g. right now 1.4.x, 1.5.x, and the
up-coming 1.6). Adding a fourth probably isn't possible without a ton of
help.


> We have apps in production running Django 1.3. There won't be any security
> fixes. If there's a critical vulnerability, we may have to do a lot of
> unpaid work to either backport the fix,


I have to say I find this kinda hilarious: you *know* it's a lot of work to
backport stuff, and you'd like *us* to do that work instead of you.


> I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me (I hope) but it would be really
> nice to have something like 3 years of support for core infrastructure like
> Django, that's really painful to upgrade, and even more painful to replace.
> It would certainly help me to sleep better at night.
>

But you are, actually, asking us to work for you. And we're happy to do it!
This is what open source is all about; volunteering to do work (often
rather thankless work) to help other people sleep at night. But there's a
limit to the free time we have, and there's a limit to the amount of scut
work you can expect a volunteer community to do for you.

Look at it this way: you run 1.3 still, so you have a personal vested
interest in backporting work. If *you* don't have the time to do it, what
makes you think that *we* do?

Jacob

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Andre Terra]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:

>
>
>> We have apps in production running Django 1.3. There won't be any
>> security fixes. If there's a critical vulnerability, we may have to do a
>> lot of unpaid work to either backport the fix,
>
>
> I have to say I find this kinda hilarious: you *know* it's a lot of work
> to backport stuff, and you'd like *us* to do that work instead of you.
>
>
>> I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me (I hope) but it would be really
>> nice to have something like 3 years of support for core infrastructure like
>> Django, that's really painful to upgrade, and even more painful to replace.
>> It would certainly help me to sleep better at night.
>>
>
> But you are, actually, asking us to work for you. And we're happy to do
> it! This is what open source is all about; volunteering to do work (often
> rather thankless work) to help other people sleep at night. But there's a
> limit to the free time we have, and there's a limit to the amount of scut
> work you can expect a volunteer community to do for you.
>


Not to hijack the thread purposely, but it's hard not to point out what a
great example of "poor attitude" this is, as was called out in a thread
here on django-developers a while back[0]. Since you'd rather not have
discussions *post facto*, I guess it doesn't hurt to be timely.

Cheers,
AT

[0]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/DUQtBrM2iTs/discussion

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Jacob Kaplan-Moss]

I'm sorry; I was snarkier and nastier than I should have been (and than I
intended to be). Thanks for calling me on it; I'll try to do better next
time.

Jacob


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andre Terra  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> We have apps in production running Django 1.3. There won't be any
>>> security fixes. If there's a critical vulnerability, we may have to do a
>>> lot of unpaid work to either backport the fix,
>>
>>
>> I have to say I find this kinda hilarious: you *know* it's a lot of work
>> to backport stuff, and you'd like *us* to do that work instead of you.
>>
>>
>>> I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me (I hope) but it would be
>>> really nice to have something like 3 years of support for core
>>> infrastructure like Django, that's really painful to upgrade, and even more
>>> painful to replace. It would certainly help me to sleep better at night.
>>>
>>
>> But you are, actually, asking us to work for you. And we're happy to do
>> it! This is what open source is all about; volunteering to do work (often
>> rather thankless work) to help other people sleep at night. But there's a
>> limit to the free time we have, and there's a limit to the amount of scut
>> work you can expect a volunteer community to do for you.
>>
>
>
> Not to hijack the thread purposely, but it's hard not to point out what a
> great example of "poor attitude" this is, as was called out in a thread
> here on django-developers a while back[0]. Since you'd rather not have
> discussions *post facto*, I guess it doesn't hurt to be timely.
>
> Cheers,
> AT
>
> [0]
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/DUQtBrM2iTs/discussion
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Michael Manfre]

If there is interest in the community to backport security fixes to no
longer supported versions of Django, what is the likelihood that a core dev
would merge them in to the appropriate stable branch? This would not
include packaging an official release, but would provide a way for those
stuck on older versions a better way to help others who are similarly
stuck. I realize that it does require time to verify pull requests and "too
much effort" is a completely valid answer.

I'm not stuck and currently have no vested interest in backporting anything
to unsupported versions. I'm only trying to further the discussion.

Regards,
Michael Manfre



On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:

> I'm sorry; I was snarkier and nastier than I should have been (and than I
> intended to be). Thanks for calling me on it; I'll try to do better next
> time.
>
> Jacob
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andre Terra wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
 We have apps in production running Django 1.3. There won't be any
 security fixes. If there's a critical vulnerability, we may have to do a
 lot of unpaid work to either backport the fix,
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to say I find this kinda hilarious: you *know* it's a lot of work
>>> to backport stuff, and you'd like *us* to do that work instead of you.
>>>
>>>
 I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me (I hope) but it would be
 really nice to have something like 3 years of support for core
 infrastructure like Django, that's really painful to upgrade, and even more
 painful to replace. It would certainly help me to sleep better at night.

>>>
>>> But you are, actually, asking us to work for you. And we're happy to do
>>> it! This is what open source is all about; volunteering to do work (often
>>> rather thankless work) to help other people sleep at night. But there's a
>>> limit to the free time we have, and there's a limit to the amount of scut
>>> work you can expect a volunteer community to do for you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not to hijack the thread purposely, but it's hard not to point out what a
>> great example of "poor attitude" this is, as was called out in a thread
>> here on django-developers a while back[0]. Since you'd rather not have
>> discussions *post facto*, I guess it doesn't hurt to be timely.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> AT
>>
>> [0]
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/DUQtBrM2iTs/discussion
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Django developers" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Donald Stufft]

On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Michael Manfre  wrote:

> If there is interest in the community to backport security fixes to no longer 
> supported versions of Django, what is the likelihood that a core dev would 
> merge them in to the appropriate stable branch? This would not include 
> packaging an official release, but would provide a way for those stuck on 
> older versions a better way to help others who are similarly stuck. I realize 
> that it does require time to verify pull requests and "too much effort" is a 
> completely valid answer. 

Lack of CI is probably going to be one of the biggest blockers. Without CI it's 
up to the merging developers to run the tests on all the combinations of stuff 
we support which isn't the easiest or the quickest thing to setup and maintain.

-
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[François Schiettecatte]

Hi

Not sure if this is useful, but I thought it might be helpful to throw my 
perspective as someone who has built four sites with Django (two of which are 
public, and one of those has to be HIPAA compliant). I will update to dot 
releases after the main release to give the main release time to shake out, so 
I will do 1.4.x to 1.5.1. And I will update to security releases as soon as 
they come out. I have done 1.3.x -> 1.4.x -> 1.5.x and they have all been 
painless, each migration taking less than 1/2 day. Point being that 
back-porting is not something I would ever need.

Cheers

François


On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Michael Manfre  wrote:

> If there is interest in the community to backport security fixes to no longer 
> supported versions of Django, what is the likelihood that a core dev would 
> merge them in to the appropriate stable branch? This would not include 
> packaging an official release, but would provide a way for those stuck on 
> older versions a better way to help others who are similarly stuck. I realize 
> that it does require time to verify pull requests and "too much effort" is a 
> completely valid answer. 
> 
> I'm not stuck and currently have no vested interest in backporting anything 
> to unsupported versions. I'm only trying to further the discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Michael Manfre
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss  
> wrote:
> I'm sorry; I was snarkier and nastier than I should have been (and than I 
> intended to be). Thanks for calling me on it; I'll try to do better next time.
> 
> Jacob
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Andre Terra  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss  wrote:
>  
> We have apps in production running Django 1.3. There won't be any security 
> fixes. If there's a critical vulnerability, we may have to do a lot of unpaid 
> work to either backport the fix,
> 
> I have to say I find this kinda hilarious: you *know* it's a lot of work to 
> backport stuff, and you'd like *us* to do that work instead of you.
>  
> I'm not asking anyone to do my job for me (I hope) but it would be really 
> nice to have something like 3 years of support for core infrastructure like 
> Django, that's really painful to upgrade, and even more painful to replace. 
> It would certainly help me to sleep better at night.
> 
> But you are, actually, asking us to work for you. And we're happy to do it! 
> This is what open source is all about; volunteering to do work (often rather 
> thankless work) to help other people sleep at night. But there's a limit to 
> the free time we have, and there's a limit to the amount of scut work you can 
> expect a volunteer community to do for you.
> 
> 
> Not to hijack the thread purposely, but it's hard not to point out what a 
> great example of "poor attitude" this is, as was called out in a thread here 
> on django-developers a while back[0]. Since you'd rather not have discussions 
> post facto, I guess it doesn't hurt to be timely.
> 
> Cheers,
> AT
> 
> [0] 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/DUQtBrM2iTs/discussion
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Florian Apolloner]

Hi François,

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:46:10 PM UTC+2, François Schiettecatte wrote:
>
> I have done 1.3.x -> 1.4.x -> 1.5.x and they have all been painless, each 
> migration taking less than 1/2 day. Point being that back-porting is not 
> something I would ever need. 
>

It's good to hear that some people are keeping up2date and it didn't cause 
any pain! Do you mind sharing how big (lines of code wise) those apps are 
(just a rough classification).

Regards,
Florian

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[ANNOUNCE] Security releases issued (1.4.6, 1.5.2, 1.6b2)

[Jacob Kaplan-Moss]

Hi folks --

Today the Django team is issuing multiple releases -- Django 1.4.6, Django
1.5.2, and Django 1.6 beta 2 -- as part of our security process. These
releases address two cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities: one in a
widget used by Django's admin interface, and one in a utility function used
to validate redirects often used after login or logout.

While these issues present limited risk and may not affect all Django
users, we encourage all users to evaluate their own risk and upgrade when
possible.

More details can be found on our blog:


https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2013/aug/13/security-releases-issued/

As a reminder, we ask that potential security issues be reported via
private email to secur...@djangoproject.com, and not via Django's Trac
instance or the django- developers list. Please see
https://www.djangoproject.com/security for further information.

Jacob

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[François Schiettecatte]

Florian

Here are wc -l line counts:

Project 1
.py 28574
.html 16967
(this is a little misleading because we don't use model.py but a separate REST 
API to handle all the storage)


Project 2
.py 43199
.html 91804


Project 3
.py 32441
.html 86684


Cheers

François


On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Florian Apolloner  wrote:

> Hi François,
> 
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:46:10 PM UTC+2, François Schiettecatte wrote:
> I have done 1.3.x -> 1.4.x -> 1.5.x and they have all been painless, each 
> migration taking less than 1/2 day. Point being that back-porting is not 
> something I would ever need. 
> 
> It's good to hear that some people are keeping up2date and it didn't cause 
> any pain! Do you mind sharing how big (lines of code wise) those apps are 
> (just a rough classification).
> 
> Regards,
> Florian
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Usage and documentation of F()

[Daniele Procida]

I noticed while looking for material for 
 that 

 mentions that:

product.number_sold = F('number_sold') + 1

is faster than:

product.number_sold += 1
 
though this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the database optimisation page.

That's easy enough to address, and 

 seems like a sensible place for it.

However the mentions of F() that I did find raised a number of questions.

The F() class seems to be a handy general-purpose way to refer to the value of 
a model field..


Firstly, it's not explained how, in expressions like:

product.number_sold = F('number_sold') + 1

(from 
)
 Django knows that F('number_sold') is refers to the product model. 

Does it know because product.number_sold is the field that this expression 
refers to? What would happen if we did:

product.number_in_stock = F('number_in_stock') - F('number_sold)

(i.e. can we make such calculations multiple other fields in one go?), or:

product.number_to_reorder = F('number_sold)

for example? What are the rules of the usage syntax of F()?

Secondly, the main documentation for F() 

 doesn't mention this kind of use at all: it only suggests that it might be 
useful in queries.

Since this use seems to be just one of multiple uses for F(), shouldn't a more 
general description of F() belong somewhere else (where) instead?


Finally, are there any other useful ways to use F() not covered by these two 
examples?


Daniele

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: #20739 - Making LiveServerTestCase not depend on staticfiles?

[Ramiro Morales]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Ramiro Morales  wrote:
> [...]
>
> I will be working further on the PR keeping all this design advice in
> mind.

Guys, I've updated the PR with further work on this:

  https://github.com/django/django/pull/1354

Any feedback is welcome.

Thanks,

-- 
Ramiro Morales
@ramiromorales

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Deprecation a little harsh?

[Jani Tiainen]

Hi,

We've been able to do quite painless upgrades to our software as well.

Considering that we started with Django 1.1, stuck quite while at 1.3 and 
recently we did upgrade to 1.5

Most notable change was {% url %} tag, but nothing really major. 

Though we don't use many external libs - we've built our own.

Only real problem we have is that our deployment system sucks with the fact 
that it had for a long time shared libraries (including Django) which did had 
some impact on upgrades but since moving towards virtualenv usage we've been 
able to get rid of that problem as well, but that has nothing to do with actual 
Django.

Line count wise we hit quite similar as Florian:

main project consists:
~200 models,

.py 44805 lines
.html 143937 lines
.js 101317 lines (this is explained that we use dojotoolkit/extjs4 based single 
page app)

And our library:
.py  25079 lines
.js 25500 lines

And my 2 cents here - 

What I really like that Django getting new, better features while keeping very 
good deprecation policy. And yes, that sometimes requires that I lose few hours 
of sleep while upgrading but eventually it has to be done - it's just that I 
can't sit forever on same version. Sooner it's done easier it is and less time 
it takes. 


On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 13:16:01 -0400
François Schiettecatte  wrote:

> Florian
> 
> Here are wc -l line counts:
> 
> Project 1
> .py 28574
> .html 16967
> (this is a little misleading because we don't use model.py but a separate 
> REST API to handle all the storage)
> 
> 
> Project 2
> .py 43199
> .html 91804
> 
> 
> Project 3
> .py 32441
> .html 86684
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> François
> 
> 
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Florian Apolloner  wrote:
> 
> > Hi François,
> > 
> > On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:46:10 PM UTC+2, François Schiettecatte wrote:
> > I have done 1.3.x -> 1.4.x -> 1.5.x and they have all been painless, each 
> > migration taking less than 1/2 day. Point being that back-porting is not 
> > something I would ever need. 
> > 
> > It's good to hear that some people are keeping up2date and it didn't cause 
> > any pain! Do you mind sharing how big (lines of code wise) those apps are 
> > (just a rough classification).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Florian
> > 

-- 

Jani Tiainen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.