Hi all,
If anyone's looking for something to do over the weekend [1], there
seems to be one whole metric tonne of issues caused by people trying
to use edit_inline and unique_together at the same time in the admin
section.
I think this has been largely ignored since we're trying to move the
admi
On 8/31/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We were talking it over in IRC, and here's a pretty good solution:
Who is 'we'?
> Intially is_stored is set to None. When you do a .get or .create it
> would then set it to True. When you delete, it would set to False.
As I said previously
Here's the patch: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5309
On Aug 30, 5:39 pm, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We were talking it over in IRC, and here's a pretty good solution:
>
> Intially is_stored is set to None. When you do a .get or .create it
> would then set it to True. When yo
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:20:09PM +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On 8/30/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Now that the database backend refactoring has landed, and DB
> > functionality is really easy to extend, how does everyone feel about the
> > possib
We were talking it over in IRC, and here's a pretty good solution:
Intially is_stored is set to None. When you do a .get or .create it
would then set it to True. When you delete, it would set to False.
A big that this does solve, beyond fixing my multiple pks, is explicit
calls.
- Calling .crea
Russell Keith-Magee said the following:
> On 8/31/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not only would this fix my multiple pk issue (temporarily :P) but it
>> seems like the right approach.
>
> I'm not a big fan on making temporary fixes. To my mind, its better to
> say 'this feature is
On 8/31/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Not only would this fix my multiple pk issue (temporarily :P) but it
> seems like the right approach.
I'm not a big fan on making temporary fixes. To my mind, its better to
say 'this feature is coming' than have a halfway implementation that
So we all know Django doesn't support multiple pks, big problem, yes.
While looking into a temporary solution to fix some issues I have with
these, I cam across another issue.
Django's check for "is this row in the database", is simply checking
if it has a primary key attribute set. If it does, i
On Aug 30, 11:47 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 19:01 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> > > design decision behind this
Hi all,
I've been looking at ticket #4412:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4412
This ticket adds support for optgroups in selects for newforms. I've
uploaded an updated patch that works with trunk and newforms-admin;
I'm looking for feedback and/or approval to commit.
This ticket has been
Just as a data point, I've only run into this issue exactly one time.
The guy had an 80-character email address.
It was kind of a pain to have to override everything everywhere in my
production app, but I only had to do it once, so... it's not too high
on my list of things that have ever annoyed
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 19:01 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> > design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
>
> I don't see why it needs to be con
On 8/30/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Now that the database backend refactoring has landed, and DB
> functionality is really easy to extend, how does everyone feel about the
> possibility of allowing people to specify their own database backends
> within their projec
On 8/30/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
> design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
I don't see why it needs to be configurable. Email have a fixed finite
maximum length - it isn't something t
It has always made me wonder why it isn't even overridable. Is there a
design decision behind this or has it just never been asked?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post
Hi all,
I've a question, why max. size of User.email field is set to 75
characters,
if RFC 2821 limits local part to 64 characters and domain to 255.
With '@' it is together 320 chars.
Should not be this field extended?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
16 matches
Mail list logo
