[ANN] Django 1.3 alpha 1 released

The first alpha preview package for Django 1.3 is now available. * Release notes: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.3-alpha-1/ * Download instructions: http://www.djangoproject.com/download/ -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --

Re: Receipt for mail to security@ ?

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Paul McMillan wrote: > In general, it would be helpful to have an auto-responder on that > address (so we know our reports didn't end up in a spambox), and a > more specific timeframe for expected response noted on the website. > It's great to

Re: Settings for a pure Oracle multi-db Django test suite setup

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > Yes, here are the settings I'm using: > > DATABASES = { >     'default': { >     'ENGINE': 'django.db.backends.oracle', >     'NAME': 'xe', >     'USER': 'ikelly', >     'PASSWORD': 'ikelly', >    

Re: Django POST Broken

I just ran into this same issue, but it wasn't Django, the answer lived in nginx.conf try checking the client_max_body_size M; in your server{ On Nov 10, 9:42 am, john <185...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a Django project. I'm running on cloudservers hosting, > with nginx/uwsgi

Re: Charfields and Admin and None, oh my.

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > So, I've been trying to trace a bug that's been affecting me as well as > someone else I know, to do with ModelForms / the admin and CharFields > with null=True, blank=True, and unique=True > > The old ticket for this

Re: Django POST Broken

My company uses the nginx + uwsgi combination extensively (well, so far it's the stack serving Django on 6-ish servers) and haven't ever had this particular problem. For reference, here's our (stock) uwsgi_params file: uwsgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; uwsgi_param REQUEST_METHOD

Re: Settings for a pure Oracle multi-db Django test suite setup

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ramiro Morales wrote: > Has anybody had success with this setup i.e. one where the 'default and > 'other' > alias pointing to such an Oracle product/install?. Is it possible at all? > > If so, could you please share the relevant Django settings

Re: multi-tenant-ized AuthenticationMiddleware?

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Jeff Enderwick wrote: > Hi, is anyone working on making the auth middleware friendly for > multi-tenent systems? > For example, username not being unique, but tenant+username being > unique instead? > I just thought I would check before

Re: Django POST Broken

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:42 PM, john <185...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a Django project. I'm running on cloudservers hosting, > with nginx/uwsgi as the server. I'm trying to get an image upload form > working with POST, but I'm running into some problems. > > Basically, it

Charfields and Admin and None, oh my.

So, I've been trying to trace a bug that's been affecting me as well as someone else I know, to do with ModelForms / the admin and CharFields with null=True, blank=True, and unique=True The old ticket for this was closed as WONTFIX: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9590 However, I'd

Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.

I apologize for the unintentional insult. In retrospect "silly" was a poor choice of words, and certainly not directed at you specifically, Jannis. Your opinion is plenty valid, even if we disagree. The real crux of my argument is this: Django's philosophy of keeping programming concerns out of

Re: Receipt for mail to security@ ?

Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Stephen Kelly > wrote: >> Can someone confirm that the email I sent yesterday made it through? Last >> time I emailed that list it was marked as spam apparently. > > Yes, we've got it. We'll get back to you shortly

Re: Receipt for mail to security@ ?

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Can someone confirm that the email I sent yesterday made it through? Last > time I emailed that list it was marked as spam apparently. Yes, we've got it. We'll get back to you shortly - sorry for the delay. Jacob --

multi-tenant-ized AuthenticationMiddleware?

Hi, is anyone working on making the auth middleware friendly for multi-tenent systems? For example, username not being unique, but tenant+username being unique instead? I just thought I would check before diving in... thanks, Jeff -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Django POST Broken

Hello, I'm working on a Django project. I'm running on cloudservers hosting, with nginx/uwsgi as the server. I'm trying to get an image upload form working with POST, but I'm running into some problems. Basically, it comes down to this: if I comment out this line: uwsgi_param CONTENT_TYPE

Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.

On 10.11.2010, at 11:09, Luke Plant wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16:59 -0700, SmileyChris wrote: >> On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee >> wrote: >>> If we can introduce the terse syntax while maintaining the old syntax >>> (including the analogous change in

Re: custom function for autoescape

> Reading over the discussion, I'm in the same camp as Luke. I can see > the use case, but I see a bunch of sharp edges that will end up biting > the user in unexpected ways. Thanks for dropping by :-) I think I've managed to remove the sharp edges. The main problem in this thread is that the

Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.

On 10.11.2010, at 09:20, Gabriel Hurley wrote: > In a fit of coincidental timing, I was just being frustrated by this > very issue with inclusion tags today. I'm +1 on supporting kwargs with > "=". It is in fact *more* familiar to someone who works with HTML to > be able to assign attributes in

Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.

On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 16:59 -0700, SmileyChris wrote: > On Oct 29, 2:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > > If we can introduce the terse syntax while maintaining the old syntax > > (including the analogous change in blocktrans), I think it would be a > > worthwhile

Re: Call for review and comment: #7539 (ForeignKey on_delete)

_/-o_ \o/ On Nov 9, 5:59 pm, Carl Meyer wrote: > This is committed as r14507:http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/14507 > > Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email

Re: Ticket #7817: Extending "with" and "include" tags.

In a fit of coincidental timing, I was just being frustrated by this very issue with inclusion tags today. I'm +1 on supporting kwargs with "=". It is in fact *more* familiar to someone who works with HTML to be able to assign attributes in arbitrary order, for example: http://example.com;