Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django

I agree almost whole-heartedly with the perception that David portrays. His feelings almost mirror mine. Albeit I haven't submitted contributions to the django development process I've been involved with a number of issues and come away with similar feelings viewing the process. I love what those

Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django

Russell, I apologize for the apparent argumentum ad nauseam. I am not trying to be sly. I am just looking for open dialogue about ideas and I feel like the door is closed and caucus is frowned upon. This is the only way I feel like I can get any floor time. The tickets I create get closed

Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django

I just want to throw my 2 cents into the ring here. I'm not against a fork, but at the same time I want to see the Django mainline progress. However, let me tell you my story, and how I've seen the Django development process over the years. I started with Django 4 years ago. It was cool, shiny,

Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:23 AM, orokusaki wrote: > Russell, > > This is what I meant by "straw hat" the other day. You took what I > said out of context in a sly attempt at ignoratio elenchi. I made it > clear in the first paragraph that **I started out thinking you

Re: Long-running tests

On Apr 17, 2:58 am, Paul McMillan wrote: > For the particular test case in modeltests/fixtures/models.py, we > might be able to improve test time by tearing the fixtures down after > verifying them, rather than doing a full flush. This will be easier to > do after converting

Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM, George Sakkis wrote: > On Apr 17, 3:47 pm, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > >> For the record, there are 62 tickets marked ready for checkin, not 400 >> [1]. 29 of those are documentation and translation patches (5