I'm on windows btw.
On Mar 8, 4:52 pm, "shevken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a way to change the default path of the image to use
> backslash (/../) instead of the forward slash?
>
> I declared the following in my model
>
> img = models.ImageUpload(upload_to='upload/img/')
>
On 3/9/07, David Danier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't see the real advantage over:
> 8<-
> from foo.accounts.models import User
> [...]
> models.ForeignKey(User)
> ->8
>
Check out the t
On 3/9/07, Tristan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have news about Oracle Sprint stuff? Will this be included in
> 0.96?
For a major feature like that, the answer to "when will it merge into
trunk" is actually a set of further questions :)
Have people used it and found it to be stable?
Does
Can 0.96 please have
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3316 ??
It would make my organization proud to know that we don't have to
patch django, and it's a very small change.
-Mike
On Mar 9, 7:28 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 3/9/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On 3/8/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main reason I suspect it hasn't been resolved one way or the other
> is in Russell's comment #23 in early March: it's become a nest of
> competing implementations, which is never an easy thing to untangle.
> Having discussion in bugs i
Hi Russ:
Do you have news about Oracle Sprint stuff? Will this be included in
0.96?
Tristan.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-de
> This patch allows dotted notation ('app_name.model_name')... the same as
> used by Django's "get_model". So, for example:
> models.ForeignKey('accounts.User')
I don't see the real advantage over:
8<-
from foo.accounts.models import User
[...]
Jeroen,
Right now my biggest time sink with newforms is dealing with dynamic
fields (in contrast to dynamic forms). I'd like to work up some
examples and present them as possible use cases to address, if you
think dynamic fields might fall within the scope of SuperForms.
--
Jeff Bauer
Rubicon,
+1
Without commenting on the patch itself, I'd like to say it addresses
an issue I've had with model relationships. Thanks for posting this
ticket!
--
Jeff Bauer
Rubicon, Inc.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo
Howdy folks,
I just created ticket #3688 [0]. It introduces a change we've been using
internally for a few weeks and I thought might be useful to other users.
Currently ForeignKey references can be to:
* A class defined either in the current models.py or imported (via 'import')
from another mode
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:25 +, Baptiste wrote:
> Thanks for your quick answer.
>
> Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
[...]
> Okay, I understand, and I agree. But as example, the {% url %} tag
> doesn't need to be translated, and the PO file could looks like :
> Posted the %(title)
> Just like a :
On Sat, Mar 10, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Also, the link in http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3279#comment:14
> seems to indicate there are some real problems with 1.2.0. Or is that
> not consistent with your understanding (I know you have quite a history
> of MySQL + python work)? So we hav
Thanks for your quick answer.
Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit :
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:29 +, Baptiste wrote:
> > ... and that is really boring ! I don't understand why does this
> > limitation exist. Sometimes, you need a little {% if %} in it... but
> > you can't. You need to end it, and that
Hey Andy,
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:45 +, Andy Dustman wrote:
> Also, MySQLdb-1.2.1 is the first version which has support for
> MySQL-4.1, and MySQlL-4.1 is the first version with good character set
> support (in prior versions the client could not change the character
> set) and sub-selects.
Also, MySQLdb-1.2.1 is the first version which has support for
MySQL-4.1, and MySQlL-4.1 is the first version with good character set
support (in prior versions the client could not change the character
set) and sub-selects. MySQLdb-1.2.1_p2 has an important bugfix, but it
only matters if you are
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:29 +, Baptiste wrote:
> ... and that is really boring ! I don't understand why does this
> limitation exist. Sometimes, you need a little {% if %} in it... but
> you can't. You need to end it, and that is not cool.
>
> Moreover, {% blocktrans %} helps me to lighten my
... and that is really boring ! I don't understand why does this
limitation exist. Sometimes, you need a little {% if %} in it... but
you can't. You need to end it, and that is not cool.
Moreover, {% blocktrans %} helps me to lighten my code by doing :
{% blocktrans with article.pub_date|date:"l
On 3/9/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 3/9/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How close are we to tagging the tree for 0.96?
>
> Close :)
>
> There are still a couple bugs to be knocked off, and a couple
> documentation things I'd like to see shored up, thoug
+1 - Sub forms and form lists are great and IMHO very common. Please
submit the patch.
On Mar 9, 11:18 am, "Jeroen van Dongen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apart from the SubForm "field" I've also created a FormList "field"
> which takes a form definition, a min_count and a max_count which
> allo
Malcolm Tredinnick:
> Which is a better approach?
>
> (A) Don't apply the patch and people running with 1.2.0 or
> earlier who have so far been lucky are not visibly affected,
> although they may still be getting strange MySQL errors. But
> people wanting to use ex
Hi all,
As far as I'm aware (from browsing the mailinglists and the newforms
code) newforms currently does not support compound or nested forms.
With this I mean something like (fairly dumbed-down example, but taken
from an app I'm currently working on):
class AddressForm(forms.Form):
street
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:02 +1100, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
[...]
> Which is a better approach?
>
> (A) Don't apply the patch and people running with 1.2.0 or
> earlier who have so far been lucky are not visibly affected,
> although they may still be getting strange MySQL
Informed opinions wanted, please...
In changeset [4621], Jacob checked in a change to the installation
documents pointing out that we really require the MySQLdb version to be
1.2.1-p2 or later. This is because of a threading bug in earlier
versions.
However, not all systems will be upgraded to t
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 01:51 -0600, James Bennett wrote:
> On 3/9/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How close are we to tagging the tree for 0.96?
>
> Close :)
>
> There are still a couple bugs to be knocked off, and a couple
> documentation things I'd like to see shored up, t
24 matches
Mail list logo
