To all Django committers --
Please don't change any code within django.db.models over the next few
days. Stimulated by ticket #2306, I took a look in there (particularly
the file query.py) and was a bit taken aback by how monstrous the code
has gotten. I'll be refactoring it over the next couple
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> I've just committed r3246 which implements the change.
Thanks Russell. This is certainly more natural.
This really should be added to the model api documentation too.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
On 6/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi.
> I just noticed that the last email I got from django-updates was on
> june 12.
> has something been turned off ?
Did this ever get resolved? The thread looks like docs generation was
fixed but I see nothing about the django-updates
Mostly on the topic of what Rails needs to do better to get more
mainstream acceptance.
Most not very sexy.
Many, Django already does.
http://blog.scribestudio.com/articles/2006/06/30/railsconf-2006-keynote-series-dave-thomas
/me wishes he could work full time on dj 1.0. :(
On Jul 7, 2006, at 12:32 PM, OpenMercury wrote:
> We'll drop the "Enterprise". I tried everything under the sun
> yesterday using that switch. Nothing would stop the default
> transactional behavior. I must have spent 3 hours debugging the code.
> At the end of the day, I came to the
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:45 AM, OpenMercury wrote:
> > I'm proposing and have created a Patch that is incorporated into the
> > settings.py and global_settings.py files called:
> > ENTERPRISE_TRANS_MANAGER = True.
>
> How does this differ from setting
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:06 +0100, Bill de hÓra wrote:
>> Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
>>
>>> There was reasonable consensus in one of the threads about doing
>>> something similar (but a bit smaller) than what Wordpress does. Now it's
>>> a case of "patches
On Jul 7, 2006, at 9:45 AM, OpenMercury wrote:
> I'm proposing and have created a Patch that is incorporated into the
> settings.py and global_settings.py files called:
> ENTERPRISE_TRANS_MANAGER = True.
How does this differ from setting ``DISABLE_TRANSACTION_MANAGEMENT``
to ``True``? See
Antonio Cavedoni wrote:
> So this would be no good.
>
> Perhaps I’m missing something but unicodedata won’t cut it.
This is my point. Cut what exactly? "No good" for what exactly? We
could file patches to see what sticks, but it might be better to figure
what's wanted first, instead of
Sorry to go into a long winded disertation here..
The organization I'm currently working for has started to Use Django
for limmited functionality. Mainly the ORM to integrate our Postgres
DB with some XML Processing. While doing our Unit testing, I figured
out that we could not do proper
On 7 Jul 2006, at 11:06, Bill de hÓra wrote:
> What's the expected scope of the downcoding? Would it be throwing a
> few
> dicts together in the admin js, or a callback to
> unicodedata.normalize?
I’m not sure unicodedata.normalize is enough. It kind of works, if
you do something like:
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> There was reasonable consensus in one of the threads about doing
> something similar (but a bit smaller) than what Wordpress does. Now it's
> a case of "patches gratefully accepted". A lot of people say this is a
> big issue for them, so it's something that will be
12 matches
Mail list logo
