The precise location is probably in ref/ although perhaps jacob could
give a better answer. More importantly the way links are done has
been changed, check out this:
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/documentation/
for more info, also look at other docs for examples, or ask here or
Hi,
I grabbed ticket #6842 and added a patch that has some documentation
for the exceptions Django raises since I needed some of this info:)
The file I added, exceptions.txt is not in the right folder after the
docs refactor landed between my starting the patch last week and
today. I don't know
Well for one thing, if one of the columns happens to be named "ID", we
should use that for the relatedfields lookup column and that is that.
(BTW, does your approach allow the Django supplied ID field to be
combined with some other field(s) to make a multi-column key? This
would be bang up for
What I had briefly discussed with malcom was using ordered tuples but
switching up the defaults to use actualy field lookups.
MyModel.objects.get(pk=(1, 2)) or MyModel.objects.get(foo=1, bar=2)
If we could come up with some design for multi-column fields I'm wiling to
put in the work.
On Wed,
El 28/08/2008, a las 0:27, David Cramer escribió:
> Really I'm stuck at an architectural point.
>
> I have database validation and synchronization done, and the admin
> is working.
>
> What is left is more or less handling relatedfield lookups. The
> issue is, that field's are designed to
Really I'm stuck at an architectural point.
I have database validation and synchronization done, and the admin is
working.
What is left is more or less handling relatedfield lookups. The issue is,
that field's are designed to reference more than one field, so it's a tough
design deicision to
Any progress on this patch David? I would be happy to take a look at
whatever you have and perhaps help out with completing the patch.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM, David Spreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you might know, 1.0 will come too late for Debian Lenny (unless we
> will get a freeze exception which at this time seems rather unlikely).
> Since Security is important to Debian, I wondered if there is a policy
> as
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM, David Spreen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am a member of the Debian Python Modules Team and have been heavily
> involved in the transition to Django 1.0 in Debian (1.0~beta2 is about
> to be uploaded to experimental).
>
> As you might know, 1.0
Hello,
I am a member of the Debian Python Modules Team and have been heavily
involved in the transition to Django 1.0 in Debian (1.0~beta2 is about
to be uploaded to experimental).
As you might know, 1.0 will come too late for Debian Lenny (unless we
will get a freeze exception which at this
We are *NOW* in complete and total feature freeze?
Regards
On Aug 27, 9:41 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "We're not in complete and total feature freeze. "
>
> I assume you mean the opposite of this.
>
> On Aug 27, 9:15 am, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
pls forgive me. didn't see Jacob's reply. was replying to alex.gaynor.
the exact phrasing was a coincidance, though.. lol
On Aug 27, 10:51 pm, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are *NOW* in complete and total feature freeze?
>
> Regards
>
> On Aug 27, 9:41 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "We're not in complete and total feature freeze. "
> >
> > I assume you mean the opposite of this.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Proofread, Jacob,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "We're not in complete and total feature freeze. "
>
> I assume you mean the opposite of this.
Sigh.
Proofread, Jacob, proofread.
We're *NOW* in complete and total feature freeze.
Jacob
"We're not in complete and total feature freeze. "
I assume you mean the opposite of this.
On Aug 27, 9:15 am, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi folks --
>
> Right, so this is it.
>
> We've got about a week until the scheduled release of Django 1.0, and
> the milestone shows
Hi folks --
Right, so this is it.
We've got about a week until the scheduled release of Django 1.0, and
the milestone shows 86 open tickets. It's time to put our heads down
and get this release out. A few notes:
We're not in complete and total feature freeze. This means that the
only things we
That branch is totally dead, there is some external work attempting to
add multi-db support, I don't know the status of it though.
On Aug 27, 4:40 am, Romain Gaches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thinking about switching from a homemade framework to django, I took a
> look a the
Hi,
Thinking about switching from a homemade framework to django, I took a
look a the MultiDatabaseSupport stuff
(http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/MultipleDatabaseSupport
).
The related code seems to be 2 years old, is this branch still in
development ?
I also noticed that the DB
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 18:09 -0700, Cam MacRae wrote:
>> contrib.auth view tests fail if required templates aren't found. This
>> seems a sensible default in line with Russell's post [1]
>
> The problem with that
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 11:00 -0700, David Cramer wrote:
> Recently I noticed a bunch of queries I was executing by hand (one's
> which the ORM didn't support) were not being committed.
>
> I dug into the docs, and it clearly states that the default
> transaction mode is autocommit, and mysql's
20 matches
Mail list logo
