On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 21:16 -0400, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Start a "train release" schedule: schedule a couple of 1.0
> betas, a
> rc or two, and then a final release. Features that are done by
On Jun 9, 2008, at 9:16 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> I'd trade your controversial part for an alternative: merge mewforms-
> admin back to trunk now. It's been as 'usable' as old admin for
> months. Sure, it's got a couple of dozen 'blocking' bugs in the
> tracker but none of them are all th
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Start a "train release" schedule: schedule a couple of 1.0 betas, a
> rc or two, and then a final release. Features that are done by the
> dates get released, those that aren't, don't. Make these dates
> aggressive b
Personally I loosely follow trunk so I'm not waiting for 1.0, and I
don't really care how many "releases" there are between now and 1.0.
What I would like to see is the last few major NFA blockers fixed and
NFA merged into trunk. Just get it out there in trunk, so we can get
more real world use re
Yes, we will have problem. And we will not port our apps to 1.0.
I'm in the same situation. And I know we'll never go for 1.0 when it
will be ready, because there will be too much work to port all the
applications through unicode, qs-rf and nfa changes. We will stay with
0.96 until customer drops
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Peter Melvyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/9/08, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So please, in all honesty, tell me why you think Django's development
>> process isn't "visible" enough for people who are concerned and want
>> to get information.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Start a "train release" schedule: schedule a couple of 1.0 betas, a
> rc or two, and then a final release. Features that are done by the
> dates get released, those that aren't, don't. Make these dates
> aggressive bu
Hi, all.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 15:28 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > I agree with the sentiment of this, but we've passed the point where
Apologies for posting before I finished reading.
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 15:28 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiment of this, but we've passed the point where
> > it's a useful argument.
>
> I'll conced
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 15:28 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I agree with the sentiment of this, but we've passed the point where
> > it's a useful argument.
>
> I'll concede that if you'll concede that we've also passed
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM, J. Cliff Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with the sentiment of this, but we've passed the point where
> it's a useful argument.
I'll concede that if you'll concede that we've also passed the point
where issuing interim pre-1.0 releases offers any real gai
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 14:08 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
> There would be frustration from people who want to stick to, say, the
> hypothetical 0.98 but need a third-party app that forges ahead to the
> hypothetical 0.99. There would be gnashing of teeth from people who
> would hear that they need
On Sat, 2008-06-07 at 12:06 -0700, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> For the record, and if the author of this blog post is reading: I
> can't stand the passive-aggressiveness of making a rant on your blog
> and waiting for us to read it. I wish this had been brought up here
> instead of trying to drum
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Posting this here rather than someone's blog post comments:
Rob, let me step back a moment and point out how this comment would
strike me if I didn't know you and didn't know that it wasn't your
inention to come off this w
I think that it is better way to write code and produce 1.0 as soon as
possible then to write tons of text that doesn't help in it.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
Posting this here rather than someone's blog post comments:
Just a note up front, Django has completely changed the way I build
websites and I'm totally enamored with it, but I'm trying to think of
how official releases could have benefitted myself in my situation and
this is what I came up with.
Hey all,
I've been fairly quiet on the file storage front for a while, since
it's basically done now, and is just waiting on the streaming upload
ticket to hit trunk first. Since I got to that point, however, I've
had two different people, working on two different storage backends,
both approach
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe it's one official release back. James will know better.
For security we patch trunk, of course, as well as current stable
release plus the two previous releases. This means we currently
provide security updates
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> When our projects are done, they're done.
Ah, that's a foreign concept to me. In that case, yeah, your strategy
sounds good. :)
...
> Please tell me more about the legacy problem you are predicting.
>
Our projects ar
That would be a big help for implementing backends for appengine.
I did notice a project working on an appengine helper for Django
managed to also accomplish this by creating a cache middleware. So for
others on appengine currently, using the .96 version of Django
included within the environment,
On 6/7/08, Jeremy Dunck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Where I work we use 0.96 (though I use trunk on my personal projects).
> > We use 0.96 because we have up to 12 separate Django projects
> > rotating through at a time
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Lau Bech Lauritzen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7398
Looks nice. Needs a quick addition to docs/settings.txt to describe
the new setting, but otherwise it's good to go.
Jacob
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
I created a ticket (including patch) that might be of interest:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7398
On Jun 3, 10:10 pm, "Jeremy Dunck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Joe Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Should I just create it and
> > tell pe
Le 8 juin 08 à 16:11, Ivan Sagalaev a écrit :
>
> David Larlet wrote:
>> This is not a secret that I'm interested in both Django and Semantic
>> Web. I'm following discussion about Django+REST for more than two
>> years and when I realize that newforms-admin branch will use class-
>> based generi
On Sunday 01 June 2008 08:20:13 Yuri Baburov wrote:
> However, I don't want to apply threadlocal patch -- why it's not
> added to django yet if it is the best way to go?
What do you mean the 'threadlocal patch'? You can add a threadlocal
middleware without patching Django itself.
http://code
Hi all,
What I have been missing in this discussion is the definition of a
release. It is important to release in the right manner, so that it
is worth while to spend time on it.
A release could be:
1/ a tag on a specific svn version
2/ a tag on a specific svn version and accompanying branch i
> I'm really, honestly baffled by this statement. Django development
> happens in the open. Always has. Anyone anywhere at any time can look
> at what's going on, see what the dev team is talking about, etc. And
> it's not like the places where the discussion happen are a super top
> secret; a l
On 9 jun, 05:00, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Ashish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > my proposal is
>
> You do know that a list of what has to happen before 1.0, and a page
> listing the status of each item, has been available for quite some
> time
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM, Ashish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In short all I am looking for is commitment to " freezing the scope,
> publishing a plan and hitting it for 1.0 " That will greatly increase
> the community's trust.
Er. You linked to a well-known thread in which the plan for 1.
On 6/9/08, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So please, in all honesty, tell me why you think Django's development
> process isn't "visible" enough for people who are concerned and want
> to get information.
I give you example: few weeks ago I discovered that problem #3030
still per
30 matches
Mail list logo
