On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:11:19 -0800 (PST), Rohit Sethi wrote:
> Luke, I guess the real question is what's the risk of not including it
> out-of-the-box?
Well, it *is* not included out-of-the-box. The universe has not collapsed.
While I appreciate your proposal, I don't see the immediate necessity
Sorry for bumping the thread, but could somebody familiar with session
subsystem anwer it? It is critical for my work to know if this issue is my
problem or Django's.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group,
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Vivek Narayanan wrote:
> ...
> In the run up to May 23rd, I'll be familiarizing myself with the
> codebase and community practices of Django, examining all the
> integration points and looking at the best practices of serialization.
>
> Week 1: I'll be implementing
On Mar 8, 3:14 pm, Tom Evans wrote:
> Splitting down your project into small chunks will also demonstrate to
> people reading your proposal that you understand the subject matter,
> and they can have a high confidence of the project being delivered.
Thanks, I didn't know this and I don't have
You're right - let's not argue this anymore. We'll work on something
and if it makes it into contrib, great, if not - well I guess we're no
worse off than we are right now.
In the interim I propose that we add a note to
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/auth/ to let users know
that brut
Hi,
On Mar 5, 9:30 am, akaariai wrote:
> on(primary_key) id, val1, ... from table order by primary_key this
> would solve the problem.
Is "DISTINCT ON" part of the SQL standard at all?
Cheers, Florian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django develo
On 8 March 2011 14:01, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 5, 9:30 am, akaariai wrote:
>> on(primary_key) id, val1, ... from table order by primary_key this
>> would solve the problem.
>
> Is "DISTINCT ON" part of the SQL standard at all?
>
Quoting PostreSQL docs:
> The DISTINCT ON clause
2011/3/8 Łukasz Rekucki :
> On 8 March 2011 14:01, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mar 5, 9:30 am, akaariai wrote:
>>> on(primary_key) id, val1, ... from table order by primary_key this
>>> would solve the problem.
>>
>> Is "DISTINCT ON" part of the SQL standard at all?
>>
>
> Quoting Po
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Viktor Kojouharov
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm testing my software with the new rc1 release of django 1.3, and I came
>> onto a particularly nasty problem.
>> I have a model which uses a Postgresql 'point' type, for whic
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:17 PM, poswald wrote:
> (Sorry Ramiro, I think I replied directly to you instead of to the
> group. Resending here)
>
> Understood. I believed I was adding a testcase and expanding the scope
> of the issue but it is certainly possible that they are two separate
> causes. I
Hi Guys,
This topic has me crawling out of the woodwork, I would like to
contribute to the effort.
Can't see this making it into django's core, although I would like to
see it there, I think complexities would inhibit beginners and
veterans alike, although, it would be nice if it could be config
2011/3/8 Łukasz Rekucki :
> It's also supported by Oracle, AFAIK.
It is not, although it can be emulated using an analytic query. I
tried adding this to the patch in #6422 some time ago, but I found
that the structure of an analytic query was going to be rather
complicated to shoe-horn that into
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7231
I'd like to start a discussion on this since russelm closed the
issue. There are a few other people that believe the issue should be
left open. I've been using this patch for nearly two years, and have
found it to be useful in several different cases.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, bendavis78 wrote:
> I'd like to start a discussion on this since russelm closed the
> issue. There are a few other people that believe the issue should be
> left open. I've been using this patch for nearly two years, and have
> found it to be useful in several di
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:35 PM, bendavis78 wrote:
>> I'd like to start a discussion on this since russelm closed the
>> issue. There are a few other people that believe the issue should be
>> left open. I've been using this patch for n
15 matches
Mail list logo
