Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/6/06, David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like to suggest that the branches that are felt to be complete > sans testing be merged into a single branch. I am anxiously awaiting > several different branch merges to core but do not have time to check > each individual one out to test them. Maybe it's time to begin a larger > effort, similar to magic-removal, at merging all these branches? This is a constant complaint we're seeing now. The problem is, not enough people are actually jumping in and testing out the branches. The core devs tell people all the time that it's generally safe to run Django off the trunk, but if a bunch of untested branches are merged in, well, welcome to disaster time. I wasn't around during the magic removal merging, but I'd assume that a lot of people were involved, testing out changes. People aren't jumping up to volunteer here. Jay P. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/6/06, David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like to suggest that the branches that are felt to be complete > sans testing be merged into a single branch. I am anxiously awaiting > several different branch merges to core but do not have time to check > each individual one out to test them. Maybe it's time to begin a larger > effort, similar to magic-removal, at merging all these branches? I agree that we need to find a way to kickstart testing and merging of some of the branches (a couple are pretty thoroughly ironed out, but there are still several in need of attention), but I don't think merging them all into one "super-branch" is the way to go; that's likely to bring up spurious problems from interactions of different branches' changes which would be better dealt with by merging them into trunk one at a time. Jacob has mentioned before that anyone who wants to help with a particular branch will happily be given commit access to that branch, and I'd like to see if we can't draw some more attention to that; the Boulder sprint over the weekend banged out a whole lot of fixes to Django's Oracle support using that model, and having input directly from the people who care most about the features in a particular branch is probably the healthiest thing -- people who are going to want to use the features from a branch will have the strongest interest in helping to improve the code. So let me reiterate the call for anyone who wants to bang on a branch to step up; we'll set you up with access to commit code and let you bang away on it to your heart's content :) -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
James Bennett wrote: > So let me reiterate the call for anyone who wants to bang on a branch > to step up; we'll set you up with access to commit code and let you > bang away on it to your heart's content :) Sounds good to me. What do we need to do here? I'd like to help out with the FullHistory branch. It looks like it hasn't had trunk merged to it in a while. David Blewett --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Jay Parlar wrote: > On 11/6/06, David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I would like to suggest that the branches that are felt to be complete >> sans testing be merged into a single branch. I am anxiously awaiting >> several different branch merges to core but do not have time to check >> each individual one out to test them. Maybe it's time to begin a larger >> effort, similar to magic-removal, at merging all these branches? > > This is a constant complaint we're seeing now. The problem is, not > enough people are actually jumping in and testing out the branches. > The core devs tell people all the time that it's generally safe to run > Django off the trunk, but if a bunch of untested branches are merged > in, well, welcome to disaster time. > (what follows will be a little critical. please don't get it wrong. i simply am stating what i think is wrong, and what should be done so that we can move on, and finish/merge these branches) i think the problem is also the documentation (well, the lack of it). for example, i was trying to do some branch-testing (actually what i want is the birth of the unicode-branch, but currently the best way to achieve it seems to merge the other branches into the trunk :), so i arrived at: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ActiveBranches the status of the various branches: for the following 4 branches, the activeBranches page says that they need end-user testing: - fullHistory - http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/FullHistory says "Status: Almost there", and below it's shown that some parts are not done yet - rowLevelPermissions - the http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/RowLevelPermissionsDeveloper shows some unit-tests that still do not pass - schemaEvolution - the wiki-pages only talk about (at least 2 different) proposals. does that mean that one of the proposals has been implemented? which one? - search-api - i could not find any documentation about it the rest: - multipleDBsupport - the wikipage says that the author wants to apply some changes from the oracle-changes, and only then can/should the testing begin - genericAuthorization - under active development so, in short, the only testable branches seems to be fullHistory and rowLevelPermissions, and even there it's not clear if they are now considered done, or still in progress. so, i think those wikipages linked from http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ActiveBranches should be first updated, and should contain info about the following: - if they are finished (ready for testing) or not - documentation about how it works. because otherwise it's quite hard to test. i don't know if we should send mails directly to the authors, or they are reading django-devel... p.s: as i said, i deeply respect the work of the developers on those branches. all i wrote was with the goal that we can make the life of the testers easier => get more testing for the branches => merge the branches into the trunk gabor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 07/11/06, Gábor Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jay Parlar wrote: > > On 11/6/06, David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I would like to suggest that the branches that are felt to be complete > >> sans testing be merged into a single branch. I am anxiously awaiting > >> several different branch merges to core but do not have time to check > >> each individual one out to test them. Maybe it's time to begin a larger > >> effort, similar to magic-removal, at merging all these branches? > > > > This is a constant complaint we're seeing now. The problem is, not > > enough people are actually jumping in and testing out the branches. > > The core devs tell people all the time that it's generally safe to run > > Django off the trunk, but if a bunch of untested branches are merged > > in, well, welcome to disaster time. > > > (what follows will be a little critical. please don't get it wrong. i > simply am stating what i think is wrong, and what should be done so that > we can move on, and finish/merge these branches) > > i think the problem is also the documentation (well, the lack of it). > > for example, i was trying to do some branch-testing (actually what i > want is the birth of the unicode-branch, but currently the best way to > achieve it seems to merge the other branches into the trunk :), > > so i arrived at: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ActiveBranches > > the status of the various branches: > > for the following 4 branches, the activeBranches page says that they > need end-user testing: > > - fullHistory > - http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/FullHistory says "Status: Almost > there", and below it's shown that some parts are not done yet > > - rowLevelPermissions > - the http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/RowLevelPermissionsDeveloper > shows some unit-tests that still do not pass > > - schemaEvolution > - the wiki-pages only talk about (at least 2 different) proposals. > does > that mean that one of the proposals has been implemented? which one? > I don't think any of those proposals reflect what is actually implemented. I've used the schema-evolution branch and have had some issues which are yet to be resolved or even responded to by the developer. > - search-api > - i could not find any documentation about it > > > the rest: > > - multipleDBsupport > - the wikipage says that the author wants to apply some changes from > the oracle-changes, and only then can/should the testing begin > > - genericAuthorization > - under active development > > > so, in short, the only testable branches seems to be fullHistory and > rowLevelPermissions, and even there it's not clear if they are now > considered done, or still in progress. > > > > so, i think those wikipages linked from > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ActiveBranches should be first > updated, and should contain info about the following: > > - if they are finished (ready for testing) or not > - documentation about how it works. > > because otherwise it's quite hard to test. > > i don't know if we should send mails directly to the authors, or they > are reading django-devel... > > > p.s: as i said, i deeply respect the work of the developers on those > branches. all i wrote was with the goal that we can make the life of the > testers easier => get more testing for the branches => merge the > branches into the trunk > > gabor > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Gábor Farkas wrote: > - search-api > - i could not find any documentation about it search-api has a wiki page here: http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/TextIndexingAbstractionLayer There is currently one supported indexer (Lucene) and a couple experimental (Xapian). It needs polish. I blogged about the status a while ago here: http://blog.case.edu/bmb12/2006/08/merquery_summer_of_code_results As for development activity, Rafael Sierra at least has posted some patches, but I won't have time to focus on it more until I graduate in December. If anyone has comments or suggestions about what sucks (besides it being really minimalist right now), I'll be glad to fix it up when I get the chance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
What problems have you had with schema evolution? We're pretty commited to using Django over at my company - and I need schema evolution badly - so I'll be starting to kick the s-o branch starting tomorrow afternoon to see if it's stable enough for us. If necessary, I can apply patches myself as I'm running an instance of svk that mirrors the entire django source tree anyway. vic On 11/6/06, Matthew Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think any of those proposals reflect what is actually > implemented. I've used the schema-evolution branch and have had some > issues which are yet to be resolved or even responded to by the > developer. > -- "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/6/06, Brian Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > search-api has a wiki page here: > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/TextIndexingAbstractionLayer > > There is currently one supported indexer (Lucene) and a couple > experimental (Xapian). It needs polish. I blogged about the status a > while ago here: > http://blog.case.edu/bmb12/2006/08/merquery_summer_of_code_results I added this info to the ActiveBranches wiki page. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
I've tested 2 branches: - search api had/(has?) a syntax error for a long time and it isn't finished - full history - coudn't make it work, no diffs / comparing When I'll find some more time I'll test it more and put bug reports on trac but from these two I see only full history as a candidate for merge. Full text search is rather unfinished --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Jay Parlar wrote: > The core devs tell people all the time that it's generally safe to run Django > off the trunk I think this is a self-imposed limitation to allowing a branch that's close to be merged to trunk to get more testers. For myself, I'd much rather see some broken things on trunk on occasion if that means it is easier to develop and move Django forward. I'm not involved in a lot of open source projects, but at least for Mozilla, this seems how they operate. Things get broken on trunk as they merge in new features. Eventually, bugs get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to a release to make the release as stable as possible. Would Django consider adopting a model like that? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/7/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is a self-imposed limitation to allowing a branch that's > close to be merged to trunk to get more testers. For myself, I'd much > rather see some broken things on trunk on occasion if that means it is > easier to develop and move Django forward. > > I'm not involved in a lot of open source projects, but at least for > Mozilla, this seems how they operate. Things get broken on trunk as > they merge in new features. Eventually, bugs get worked out, and they > do a code freeze prior to a release to make the release as stable as > possible. > > Would Django consider adopting a model like that? That's exactly what we're using the branches for: Things get broken on the branches as branch owner merge in new features. Eventually, bugs get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to the merge to make the branch as stable as possible. :) The self-imposed limitation to making trunk usable at all times is one of the things I particularly like about our arrangement. It's mostly for developer convenience, so fans of the latest-and-greatest can simply "svn update" their Django codebase to get the latest, with minimal breakage. It's all the convenience of daily builds with none of the upgrade overhead. Adrian -- Adrian Holovaty holovaty.com | djangoproject.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
> On 11/7/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think this is a self-imposed limitation to allowing a branch that's >> close to be merged to trunk to get more testers. For myself, I'd much >> rather see some broken things on trunk on occasion if that means it is >> easier to develop and move Django forward. >> ... Adrian Holovaty: > The self-imposed limitation to making trunk usable at all times is one > of the things I particularly like about our arrangement. It's mostly > for developer convenience, so fans of the latest-and-greatest can > simply "svn update" their Django codebase to get the latest, with > minimal breakage. It's all the convenience of daily builds with none > of the upgrade overhead. I like this, too. Perhaps having an additional testing branch with the more mature branches merged with each other and the latest branch would satisfy the various requests for merged branches. This would require a kind of release team which deals with the merge conflicts, running tests, keeping contact to branch maintainers. No stability guaranteed whatsoever. Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Adrian Holovaty wrote: > That's exactly what we're using the branches for: Things get broken on > the branches as branch owner merge in new features. Eventually, bugs > get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to the merge to make > the branch as stable as possible. I suppose the disadvantage to this is getting users to test branches. > The self-imposed limitation to making trunk usable at all times is one > of the things I particularly like about our arrangement. It's mostly > for developer convenience, so fans of the latest-and-greatest can > simply "svn update" their Django codebase to get the latest, with > minimal breakage. It's all the convenience of daily builds with none > of the upgrade overhead. I admit I like it too. What about a hybrid approach? Maybe be less strict about how stable a branch is if it's "close enough". Then merge with trunk to get extra testers and bug fixes. For me, I develop on my local machine against trunk. If a branch merge comes down and something breaks, I'd likely end up looking at recent commits and post a message to django-users, or file a bug. Instant testing and bug reports. :) Maybe this is the current model but it feels like a rock solid branch is wanted before a merge to trunk happens. That requires testing on branches which is extra work and an apparent hindrance. -Rob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/7/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adrian Holovaty wrote: > > That's exactly what we're using the branches for: Things get broken on > > the branches as branch owner merge in new features. Eventually, bugs > > get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to the merge to make > > the branch as stable as possible. > > I suppose the disadvantage to this is getting users to test branches. That's a good point. Maybe we could do a better job of this by highlighting the currently developed branches on the main Django download page, rather than hiding them on the wiki, which I'm still convinced many people don't know about. Thoughts? Adrian -- Adrian Holovaty holovaty.com | djangoproject.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On 11/7/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Adrian Holovaty wrote: >>> That's exactly what we're using the branches for: Things get broken on >>> the branches as branch owner merge in new features. Eventually, bugs >>> get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to the merge to make >>> the branch as stable as possible. >> I suppose the disadvantage to this is getting users to test branches. > > That's a good point. Maybe we could do a better job of this by > highlighting the currently developed branches on the main Django > download page, rather than hiding them on the wiki, which I'm still > convinced many people don't know about. Thoughts? (+1000 on the keep-the-trunk-stable approach) i think it's a good idea, but then we also have to make sure that the documentation of the branch is up-to-date, so that it's clear if it's is testing-ready or not, and what it does offer. gabor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Adrian Holovaty schrieb: > That's a good point. Maybe we could do a better job of this by > highlighting the currently developed branches on the main Django > download page, rather than hiding them on the wiki, which I'm still > convinced many people don't know about. Thoughts? Another proposal: Let's have a branch of the month, announced on devel and users. The branch is then frozen, merged with trunk, and will be merged at a fixed date into trunk if no critical and unfixable bugs are found. This would encourage at least me to check this branch out and test it well before the merge ;-) Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Michael Radziej wrote: > Let's have a branch of the month, announced on devel and users. The > branch is then frozen, merged with trunk, and will be merged at a fixed > date into trunk if no critical and unfixable bugs are found. This would > encourage at least me to check this branch out and test it well before > the merge ;-) I like this idea too. Maybe even schedule a bug day (or few) on IRC over the course of the month to get more feedback on a particular branch that's schedule to be merged. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
> - schemaEvolution > - the wiki-pages only talk about (at least 2 different) proposals. > does > that mean that one of the proposals has been implemented? which one? I would be very interested in testing this but for me the showstopper has been both the wiki-page (what's happening, or is anything?) and documentation (how do I use it?). The test files are not very easy to follow withouth documentation. I think that wiki-pages, in general, should have clear and up-to-date information of their status. SchemaEvolution-page is a complete mess, IMHO. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suppose the disadvantage to this is getting users to test branches. > > That's a good point. Maybe we could do a better job of this by > highlighting the currently developed branches on the main Django > download page, rather than hiding them on the wiki, which I'm still > convinced many people don't know about. Thoughts? I like a stable trunk, too, and agree branches need more testing. I've been thinking about this along with some of the recent posts about patches being merged, tickets being closed, the need for more developers, etc. Something that might help with all of these issues is a designated release manager. I believe that Adrian fills this role now, but actually giving a separate person this role could provide a lot of help. For example, a RELEASE branch could be created. trunk could be copied to release and the release manager could say on the list, "ok we're going to spend this month targeting bugs x and y, tickets #xxx and #yyy, and try to merge branch z. We'll push a 0.96.pre1 when we think we're close." Then you could do regular pre2, rc1, etc. releases. Each release becomes a bit more focussed and iterative and this would help, I believe. Granted, you've still got the issue of people testing and providing feedback, but regular list release noise and targeted goals help drum up support. I've seen this approach work great in other projects, especially where the release manager is not one of the core architects and is really interested in stable releases, rather than larger architectural choices. And, of course, you need someone devs can trust and communicate with as well... but you get the idea. Just a thought I've been wanting to share Cheers, deryck -- Deryck Hodge Web Developer, Product Development Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Webmaster, Samba Team http://washingtonpost.com/ http://newsweek.com/ http://samba.org/ http://www.devurandom.org/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Hi all, I've got time at work to work on the schema evolution branch and to make sure that it works properly and to get it properly synced up to django's SVN head. >From what I can see - the latest merge from trunk to the schema evolution branch has caused quite a lot of code breakage - can anyone else verify this? I'm testing everything using the postgresql_psycopg2 backend for now. I'm getting a couple postgresql errors in branch revision r3647 which are related to tzinfo_factory settings in psycopg2 driver, but those are easy to fix. I can't get the tests to work at all using branch revision r3937. I get this: --- > python tests/runtests.py --settings=schematests.settings Traceback (most recent call last): File "tests/runtests.py", line 138, in ? django_tests(int(options.verbosity), args) File "tests/runtests.py", line 117, in django_tests run_tests(test_models, verbosity, extra_tests=extra_tests) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/test/simple.py", line 81, in run_tests management.syncdb(verbosity, interactive=False) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py", line 717, in syncdb for sql in get_sql_evolution(app): File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py", line 462, in get_sql_evolution output = get_sql_evolution_check_for_changed_field_flags(klass, new_table_name) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py", line 570, in get_sql_evolution_check_for_changed_field_flags existing_fields = introspection.get_columns(cursor,db_table) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'get_columns' --- Can anyone else verify this problem? If this is the case, I'm going rebranch from r3647 on my local repository and merge back to trunk incrementally. thanks, vic On 11/6/06, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What problems have you had with schema evolution? > > We're pretty commited to using Django over at my company - and I need > schema evolution badly - so I'll be starting to kick the s-o branch > starting tomorrow afternoon to see if it's stable enough for us. > > If necessary, I can apply patches myself as I'm running an instance of > svk that mirrors the entire django source tree anyway. > > vic > > On 11/6/06, Matthew Flanagan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think any of those proposals reflect what is actually > > implemented. I've used the schema-evolution branch and have had some > > issues which are yet to be resolved or even responded to by the > > developer. > > > > > -- > "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by > stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor > -- "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Ok, I've talked to Eric Florenza and the latest merge from trunk into the schema-evolution branch seems to be broken for him as well - in exactly the same way. So I'll assume that that merge wasn't done correctly. I'm starting to incrementally merge from r3647 back to trunk fixing things along the way.victor "i ♡ source control" ngOn 11/7/06, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, I've got time at work to work on the schema evolution branch and tomake sure that it works properly and to get it properly synced up todjango's SVN head.From what I can see - the latest merge from trunk to the schema evolution branch has caused quite a lot of code breakage - can anyoneelse verify this?I'm testing everything using the postgresql_psycopg2 backend for now.I'm getting a couple postgresql errors in branch revision r3647 which are related to tzinfo_factory settings in psycopg2 driver, but thoseare easy to fix.I can't get the tests to work at all using branch revision r3937. I get this:---> python tests/runtests.py --settings= schematests.settingsTraceback (most recent call last): File "tests/runtests.py", line 138, in ?django_tests(int(options.verbosity), args) File "tests/runtests.py", line 117, in django_tests run_tests(test_models, verbosity, extra_tests=extra_tests) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/test/simple.py",line 81, in run_testsmanagement.syncdb(verbosity, interactive=False) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py",line 717, in syncdbfor sql in get_sql_evolution(app): File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py", line 462, in get_sql_evolutionoutput = get_sql_evolution_check_for_changed_field_flags(klass,new_table_name) File "/usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/django/core/management.py",line 570, in get_sql_evolution_check_for_changed_field_flags existing_fields = introspection.get_columns(cursor,db_table)AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'get_columns'---Can anyone else verify this problem? If this is the case, I'm going rebranch from r3647 on my local repository and merge back to trunkincrementally.thanks,vicOn 11/6/06, Victor Ng < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What problems have you had with schema evolution?>> We're pretty commited to using Django over at my company - and I need> schema evolution badly - so I'll be starting to kick the s-o branch > starting tomorrow afternoon to see if it's stable enough for us. >> If necessary, I can apply patches myself as I'm running an instance of> svk that mirrors the entire django source tree anyway.>> vic>> On 11/6/06, Matthew Flanagan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> >> > I don't think any of those proposals reflect what is actually> > implemented. I've used the schema-evolution branch and have had some > > issues which are yet to be resolved or even responded to by the> > developer.> --> "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by > stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor>--"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained bystupidity." - Hanlon's Razor -- "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On Nov 8, 6:39 am, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let's have a branch of the month, announced on devel and users. The > branch is then frozen, merged with trunk, and will be merged at a fixed > date into trunk if no critical and unfixable bugs are found. This would > encourage at least me to check this branch out and test it well before > the merge ;-) > > Michael +1 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/7/06, Michael Radziej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another proposal: > > Let's have a branch of the month, announced on devel and users. The > branch is then frozen, merged with trunk, and will be merged at a fixed > date into trunk if no critical and unfixable bugs are found. This would > encourage at least me to check this branch out and test it well before > the merge ;-) That's a fantastic idea. I'd like to suggest the row level permissions branch for two reasons: 1) Seems like something a lot of people want 2) I've done a lot of testing on it, found a few bugs, and they were all fixed by the maintainer. I would guess that it is the branch that's closest to being ready (if not ready already, which it is for my use cases, I'm running this branch in production) Jay P. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Why not have both a "branch per month" and all branches featured prominently on the home page? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Although the http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ActiveBranches is better than what we had before, it can still be easier and more clear how to participate. Something like this might work better: generic-auth - Allow for ACL's, role-based systems, and current model-level permissions * Owner: Joseph Kocherhans * Looking for developers * How to participate: 1. Read http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/GenericAuthorization 2. svn co http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/branches/multiple-db-support 3. Coordinate with Joseph Kocherhans to figure out where help is needed multiple-db-support - Add support for multiple database connections * Owner: J. Pellerin * Looking for testers * How to participate: 1. Read http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/MultipleDatabaseSupport 2. svn co http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/branches/multiple-db-support 3. Try it out with your application 4. Report problems to XXX --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Michael Radziej wrote: > Adrian Holovaty schrieb: >> That's a good point. Maybe we could do a better job of this by >> highlighting the currently developed branches on the main Django >> download page, rather than hiding them on the wiki, which I'm still >> convinced many people don't know about. Thoughts? > > Another proposal: > > Let's have a branch of the month, announced on devel and users. The > branch is then frozen, merged with trunk, and will be merged at a fixed > date into trunk if no critical and unfixable bugs are found. This would > encourage at least me to check this branch out and test it well before > the merge ;-) Branch Tuesday ;) Though I run some commercial projects using an unstable-trunk, policy, I like the stable-trunk approach for Django. It clearly has worked well. In any case, the way to solve branch testing isn't to make the trunk unstable as a convenience. I guess two questions to ask now are a) how many of these branches are realistically going to land, ever, and b) which ones are considered high value, so we can focus on testing those? cheers Bill --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Let's *please* keep the trunk stable. It would be very discouraging to new developers if they checked out Django from SVN head and got a broken source tree. On the topic of which branches will ever land - I'm actively working on schema evolution right now. There's still a fair bit of work to make it stable but it *is* being worked on.I'm hoping to have code ready for review within a week. vic On 11/10/06, Bill de hOra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In any case, the way to solve branch testing isn't to make the trunk > unstable as a convenience. I guess two questions to ask now are a) how > many of these branches are realistically going to land, ever, and b) > which ones are considered high value, so we can focus on testing those? -- "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/10/06 9:59 PM, Victor Ng wrote: > Let's *please* keep the trunk stable. It would be very discouraging > to new developers if they checked out Django from SVN head and got a > broken source tree. As far as I'm concerned -- and I'm failure sure I speak for all the core developers here -- trunk stability isn't up for debate. > On the topic of which branches will ever land - I'm actively working > on schema evolution right now. There's still a fair bit of work to > make it stable but it *is* being worked on.I'm hoping to have code > ready for review within a week. Awesome. If you'd like to check your work directly into the branch, get in touch with me (off-list) and I'll hook you up. Jaco --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/11/06 10:20 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > As far as I'm concerned -- and I'm failure sure I speak for all the core That should be "fairly sure" ... Jacob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
A few points I'd like to make: 1. How about branch of the week rather than a branch of the month ... shorter period of time means better concentration, focus and quicker results. 2. The GenericAuthorization wiki page has a small road-map at the bottom of the page, rest of the branches should have that as well. It helps potential django users and developers understand just how much work remains. In fact, why not add some more detail about the quality of the code and featureset. If a branch has finished adding features and is waiting for user testing, users are more likely to test it with their own apps and report back their findings. 3. Are generic-auth and RLP branches at a position where they can be merged together? Why not combine the efforts of developers of these two branches (at least). As far as I can tell (just from the docs, not the code), most of the functionality is there already. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Missed one. As far as I can tell, there is no #django-dev on irc. Perhaps time for one? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Hi, You could also set "milestones" on a branch to make it easier to track tickets for a specific branch, therefore you could see how many bugs are open/closed for every branch and you could open tickets for specific branches. Just my 0.02, Marc Fargas. On 11/11/06, falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Missed one. > As far as I can tell, there is no #django-dev on irc. Perhaps time for > one? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
I am just curious, what the status of per-object-permissions branch is. Today I noticed that the most recent revision number of that branch matches the revision number of trunk. Does that mean, that the per-object-permissions branch is up to date with the trunk? What is still missing in that branch so that they could be merged. Regards, Aidas Bendoraitis [aka Archatas] On 11/12/06, telenieko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > You could also set "milestones" on a branch to make it easier to track > tickets for a specific branch, therefore you could see how many bugs > are open/closed for every branch and you could open tickets for > specific branches. > > Just my 0.02, > Marc Fargas. > > On 11/11/06, falcon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Missed one. > > As far as I can tell, there is no #django-dev on irc. Perhaps time for > > one? > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/15/06, Aidas Bendoraitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am just curious, what the status of per-object-permissions branch > is. Today I noticed that the most recent revision number of that > branch matches the revision number of trunk. Does that mean, that the > per-object-permissions branch is up to date with the trunk? What is > still missing in that branch so that they could be merged. Subversion revision numbers apply to the whole repository. Look at the log for /branches/per-object... for the last "merged to [x]" message. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Branch Merges?
Thanks for explanation, Jeremy. Regards, Aidas Bendoraitis [aka Archatas] On 11/15/06, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/15/06, Aidas Bendoraitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am just curious, what the status of per-object-permissions branch > > is. Today I noticed that the most recent revision number of that > > branch matches the revision number of trunk. Does that mean, that the > > per-object-permissions branch is up to date with the trunk? What is > > still missing in that branch so that they could be merged. > > Subversion revision numbers apply to the whole repository. Look at > the log for /branches/per-object... for the last "merged to [x]" > message. > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/6/06, Gábor Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so, in short, the only testable branches seems to be fullHistory and > rowLevelPermissions, and even there it's not clear if they are now > considered done, or still in progress. Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Could we get status reports from branch authors who are reading this? Or, better, could you update the info for your branches on the wiki page? -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/7/06, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm starting to incrementally merge from r3647 back to trunk fixing things > along the way. Cool. Let us know when you're ready to start sending in code and we'll get you set up (though it might not be able to happen today; it's election day in the US, and all of us in the news industry are running around like chickens with our heads cut off...). -- "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Re: Re: Branch Merges?
On 11/6/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/6/06, Gábor Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > so, in short, the only testable branches seems to be fullHistory and > > rowLevelPermissions, and even there it's not clear if they are now > > considered done, or still in progress. > > Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Could we get status reports from branch > authors who are reading this? Or, better, could you update the info > for your branches on the wiki page? I'm actually working on the generic-auth branch again. It works fine for checking permissions on single objects, but I'm still adding more convenience functions and refactoring some stuff. The API is probably stable though. I've updated the GenericAuthorization wiki page, so if anything is out of date, bug me. Joseph --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
