I have started testing RLP (POP) branch beginning yesterday.
Nothing much happening yet, I am just trying to understand
the mechanics of it for now.
Will send updates here, both yeas and nays.
/Nara
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
I'll take a look at it and (if all goes well) fix it.
Cheers,
Chris
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to
[...]
> > - no serial/autoincrementing type, sequence + trigger required.
> Using Oracle-specific initial SQL will be a workaround to get past that
bingo, thanks.
> A more general solution should be possible, too, but will need a bit of
> a redesign in management.py the backend creation.py
On 9/20/06, Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jay Parlar wrote:
>
> > There's still the schema evolution, multi-db, multi-auth and
> > search-api branches. I think it'd be great to get all of those into
> > the Django core/contrib, but without more testing of them, it'll never
> > happen.
>
>
Jay Parlar wrote:
> There's still the schema evolution, multi-db, multi-auth and
> search-api branches. I think it'd be great to get all of those into
> the Django core/contrib, but without more testing of them, it'll never
> happen.
Good suggestions, although I was thinking of something
On 9/19/06, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like neither branch is particularly lively just now. I'm
> trying to decide whether to catch up to 0.90 or 0.91 from r1338. Of
> course 0.90 is easier to get to, but if more developers are coding on
> 0.91, then maybe I'll try to
On 8/12/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I've set up a 0.91-bugfixes branch and given you commit access. Have at
> it!
>
It looks like neither branch is particularly lively just now. I'm
trying to decide whether to catch up to 0.90 or 0.91 from r1338. Of
course 0.90 is
Hi i just started with django yesterday and was testing RLP today.
In the order it says this in the documentation:
The order of checking permissions will work in the following order:
User Row Level Permission -> Group Row Level Permission -> User Model
Level Permission -> Group Model Level
Linicks wrote:
> I have been waiting for the pop/gen_auth merge, but it looks like that
> may not happen as soon as I would like, so I will start working with
> the current gen_auth branch in a couple of days.
This should have read:
I have been waiting for the pop/gen_auth merge, but it looks
+1
I'm also for Django unicodization.
Regards,
Aidas Bendoraitis [aka Archatas]
On 9/19/06, Max Derkachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1
> Let the thing begin.
>
> Regards,
> Max.
>
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 02:22 -0700, world_domination_kites wrote:
[...]
> and i got past that bit. While that's nasty, I at least now know that I
> have to deal with two more accursed Oracle problems and a bug:
> - no serial/autoincrementing type, sequence + trigger required.
Using
> In normal SQL terminology a constraint is a restriction on a column. It
> could be to bind it to always refer to another table's and column (i.e.
> a foreign) key or the other standard things (trying to establish my
> baseline, not teach you to suck eggs). It just happens that you can name
>
+1
Let the thing begin.
Regards,
Max.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 22:38 -0700, world_domination_kites wrote:
> Thank's for the reply Malcom,
>
> > > I can't change the table names, since the whole point of this exercise
> > > is to make a cheep admin interface to a legacy app.
> > Sorry, I wasn't being clear: you don't have to change the
14 matches
Mail list logo
