On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nick Phillips
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:00 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> These all strike me as messages appropriate for a warning -- they're
>> all slightly concerning indications that you're either under some sort
>> of attack, or at the very lea
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 09:00 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> These all strike me as messages appropriate for a warning -- they're
> all slightly concerning indications that you're either under some sort
> of attack, or at the very least that your users are having a bad
> experience on your site
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Ian Lewis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nick Phillips
> wrote:
>> I'm worried by the use of "warning" for all 4xx statuses. I think it
>> still makes sense to use the "original" syslog level definitions[*] as a
>> guide, and on there I'd sugge
2010/9/29 Łukasz Rekucki :
> On 28 September 2010 17:45, Ian Lewis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nick Phillips
>> wrote:
>>> I'm worried by the use of "warning" for all 4xx statuses. I think it
>>> still makes sense to use the "original" syslog level definitions[*] as a
>>>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 14:16 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> * The default logging configuration. Have I got the
>> propagate/override options right for sensible defaults (both in global
>> and new-project settings)?
>
> I just noticed th
On 28 September 2010 17:45, Ian Lewis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nick Phillips
> wrote:
>> I'm worried by the use of "warning" for all 4xx statuses. I think it
>> still makes sense to use the "original" syslog level definitions[*] as a
>> guide, and on there I'd suggest tha
I don't see how a 302 because someone posted something is any less debug
thann the 200 to serve thhhe get.
Bikesheddinngly yours,
Alex
On Sep 28, 2010 11:45 AM, "Ian Lewis" wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nick Phillips
wrote:
> I'm worried by ...
I'm split on this myself but I th
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Nick Phillips
wrote:
> I'm worried by the use of "warning" for all 4xx statuses. I think it
> still makes sense to use the "original" syslog level definitions[*] as a
> guide, and on there I'd suggest that some 4xx statuses would merit
> "Info", some "Notice",
On Sep 28, 3:42 am, Luke Plant wrote:
> But can anyone else think of any gotchas with this change before I
> commit it? It produces a 30% improvement for the benchmark that relates
> to the ticket [3].
Not directly related to this change, but there are at least one part
in Django that will cache
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:37:08PM -0400, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> While developing my backend I basically ignored the existing tests
> because it was impossible to learn anything from 700 test failures,
> of which some are "expected and never will pass" (e.g. ones testing
> that we generate only one
On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 14:16 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> * The default logging configuration. Have I got the
> propagate/override options right for sensible defaults (both in global
> and new-project settings)?
I just noticed that the project template settings and the global
settings are
On 28 Sep., 02:45, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> So - the real goal is to ensure that you can use forms and generic
> views with NoSQL stores, not to ensure that you take an app built
> using a relational store, and deploy it on a NoSQL store.
If that's the real goal then we've reached it alread
12 matches
Mail list logo
