> I don't know how many people actually used that feature (I never did),
> but it seems like it was a bit accidental. As we are speaking about a
> development server, I don't find this feature very useful as (most of
> the time) you want to run it on a host-only address, which won't have
> many ali
2010/12/31 Łukasz Rekucki :
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure about resolution for this ticket[1]. Initially this looks
> like a regression. On the other hand, it was never documented that
> "runserver" accepted anything other than an IP:port pair.
>
> I don't know how many people actually used that feature (
Hi,
I'm not sure about resolution for this ticket[1]. Initially this looks
like a regression. On the other hand, it was never documented that
"runserver" accepted anything other than an IP:port pair.
I don't know how many people actually used that feature (I never did),
but it seems like it was a
Hey Jonas, good afternoon :)
> Okay I would like to jump in here quickly and give my two cents on this
> topic.
great :)
> A very important distinction that should be made is the difference between
> 'dynamic' and 'static' translations.
> I call translations 'static' when they're strings that ar
Okay I would like to jump in here quickly and give my two cents on this
topic.
A very important distinction that should be made is the difference between
'dynamic' and 'static' translations.
I call translations 'static' when they're strings that are fix in the
templates (eg the text on the log
