> > Although, you have a point, I have to say that limitation in order_by
> > bugs me as well. :)
>
> I think that's a case of learning to live with your disappointment. It
> would lead to a lot of counter-intuitive behaviour to make order_by()
> incremental, because the *first* ordering
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 13:46 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> > OK, sourceforge's SVN is back up and from a brief look I don't think the tip
> > of the trunk for MySQLdb is intended to be in general use. The comment
> > associated with rev 530, current for connections.py and the one which
> >
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 17:06 -0700, msaelices wrote:
> This mail maybe can be splitted in two, but I write only one because
> both are related.
>
> Ok, ModelForms is a very very wonderful thing, but I want to talk
> about (maybe) excessive implicitness.
>
> Look at this form declaration:
>
>
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:23 -0700, Mike Axiak wrote:
[...]
> Let's look at the S3 uploading process. There are two ways we can
> handle the upload and send to S3:
>
>1. Stream the data directly to S3.
>2. Stream the data to disk, then send to S3.
>
> I think a lot of people might opt
On Apr 4, 3:29 pm, "Marty Alchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I admit I haven't been following this terribly closely, but now that
> both #5361 and #2070 are nearing completion, I'm trying to get a good
> handle on all of this in case there are any interactions between the
> two that I can help
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, one thing we'll need to figure out PDQ is what's appropriate for
> an upload handler, and what's appropriate for a storage backend.
> Hopefully the two of you can work out the breakdown.
I'll read over the
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Marty Alchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why would there ever be an
> S3UploadHandler? Shouldn't that be handled by a file storage backend?
Yeah, one thing we'll need to figure out PDQ is what's appropriate for
an upload
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Mike Axiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, the instant they pass the file to some remote location
> (think: S3UploadHandler) or alter the content (think:
> GZipUploadHandler) they will need their own way of defining what is
> content and how it should be
On Apr 4, 2:46 pm, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hrm, good point. I'll chew a bit more, but I can't think of a good way
> to avoid the extra setting (as much as I dislike creeping settings).
I didn't want to use the extra setting either, but I finally caved in
after working
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Mike Axiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Composition gets a little tricky. I realized this when I wrote the
> stuff that handles the composition.
> Right now we have (InMemoryUploadHandler, TemporaryFileUploadHandler)
> in a sequence, and now the memory handler
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apologies in advance if this is out of scope of the discussion here,
> but I just wanted to make sure that the existing documentation for
> django 0.91 [1] isn't lost in the shuffle.
It won't. I'll probably just flatten what's
> I'm not a Django dev and have nothing to do with GSOC but wanted to
> make some comments on your proposal because I'm interested in it from
> an end-user's perspective.
At the risk of oversimplifying: when justifying a new feature in an
existing code base, an end-user perspective is just as
Thanks for the review!
On Apr 4, 12:28 pm, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > TextFileForm(data={'description': u'Assistance'}, files={'file':
> > {'filename': 'test1.txt', 'content': 'hello world'}})
>
> What would an equivalent line look like under the new system? That is,
Apologies in advance if this is out of scope of the discussion here,
but I just wanted to make sure that the existing documentation for
django 0.91 [1] isn't lost in the shuffle. It appears that this
documentation is at least somewhat outside the process of the rest of
the documentation (0.95,
> While I'm not a decision maker in the Django community, that's where
> my concern would be: is this something you could finish in the time
> period.
That's my only real concern as well. That's how I knew my original
proposal was all sorts of misleading and/or muddled: the fact that
Malcolm
This is unintentional, my only intent was to improve the way I
contribute to Django, not impose anything on the general development
process. Hopefully the mighty BDFLs can pardon a mere mortal for such
a horrific blunder.
Everything (or at least the most important bits) on the proposal pages
has
Hi Jason,
I'm not a Django dev and have nothing to do with GSOC but wanted to
make some comments on your proposal because I'm interested in it from
an end-user's perspective.
Jason Ledbetter wrote:
>...But I could drop
> the scripting idea and instead work off of a "batch options" object
> and
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Jason Ledbetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
lots of thoughts
Ok so right off I have to admit I haven't read everything you've said,
but as I have some experience working with database generation tools,
I didn't feel the need to be converted to their goodness.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Mike Axiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that we actually have a working patch [1], there are a few details
> I'd like to raise here.
Woo! Thanks for your hard work. My thoughts on your questions follow inline:
> Supporting dictionaries in form code
>
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> That's probably the best idea. We'd still need an editor to eye
> submissions, remove outdated or missing material, brow-beat authors
> into updating blog entries, etc.
Just make sure you make it possible for external editors (=anyone) to
maintain link collections,
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't checked if Sphinx already supports this, but one of the core
> ideas for the Python AltLibRef project that partially inspired Sphinx
> was a simple "target" concept that could be used to link to very
>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A compromise would be centralized core documentation, but with links to
> external sites in a clearly-marked "see also" section. The web *is* a
> distributed place, after all.
That's probably the best idea. We'd still
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:37 AM, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I entirely accept that. The proposal pages are complementary (and,
> indeed, secondary) to discussions on the mailing list.
OK, look, I don't mean to be a dick here but you're not understanding
me. You don't get to just "invent"
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Like James and Marty I'm skeptical that it'll be useful all that
> often. docstrings are really meant for folks reading the source
nah, they're meant for folks using the "help" command when playing with
things via the command line (or using similar mechanisms in
Alex Myodov wrote:
> Breaking the huge documents into smaller chunks for readability is
> good... but please do leave the original huge ones as well! There are
> cases where "a huge document" serves more help than "a bunch of
> smaller ones" and really has its worth.
I haven't checked if Sphinx
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> I'm wondering if something like http://django.reddit.com/ shouldn't
>> get some sort of official blessing for listing/searching those blog
>> posts which aren't of good enough quality for inclusion in the
>> official docs, but are still useful to some people.
>
>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 7:19 AM, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started
> http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoSpecifications/Contrib/Sessions
> to properly sort this out. Please edit.
No, please post here. I know you want there to be a formal spec
process, but there isn't. Right now
I started
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoSpecifications/Contrib/Sessions
to properly sort this out. Please edit.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this
Aaron
try this site
http://djangogigs.com/
On 03/04/2008, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My apologies in advance if this is not the correct channel for this
> > message,
>
>
> It is not. From the group's
29 matches
Mail list logo
