Re: support for JSON RPC views

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Cptn Obvious wrote: > Are you kidding? That sort of comment really isn't called for. It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but if you can't take the time to respond in an adult manner, please refrain from responding at all. Yours, Russ

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joe & Anne Tennies wrote: > The thing is, we aren't trying to "scientifically correct" statistics. > What we're aiming to say is, "This is not so wildly different as to be of > any concern." We aren't looking for minor difference, but orders of

Re: Python 3 port - all tests now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

Doh, accidentally hit "send on my phone." Let me finish my thought: I must say that I would personally LOVE to see this in 1.4 as some sort of "preview" (akin to __future__) to give people a chance to get their packages up and running on Python 3. This would also allow people to document the

Re: Python 3 port - all tests now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

I was thinking the same thing. Make absolutely sure it works under 2.5-2.7 and even if there are a couple of issues or items not fully tested under 3.2.2 at least we will be moving in the right direction. paul On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Joseph Tennies wrote: > I must

Re: Python 3 port - all tests now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

I must say that I would personally LOVE to see this in 1.4 as some sort of "preview" (akin to __future__) to give people a chance to get their packages up and running on Python 3. This would also allow people to document the porting process properly. Obviously, this is dependent on the code

Re: Django 1.4 roadmap

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Luke Plant wrote: > On 28/11/11 20:33, Adrian Holovaty wrote: >> I plan on starting this next week. Is there a list somewhere of what >> needs to get done? If not, I can make it, but obviously it'd be great >> if that already existed. > > 1)

Re: Sprint in San Francisco

I'll be there as well! Either set of dates works for me. - Gabriel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/hCK2OwboH40J. To post to

Re: FileField should be a context manager

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:36:53 PM UTC+1, Alex_Gaynor wrote: >> >> It isn't alreayd?!?!  All file objects django exposes should be context >> managers, I thought I added that to a base mixin class a

Re: Python 3 port - all tests now pass on 2.7.2 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

In which Django release are we hoping to release this port? 1.4 or 1.5? Ram. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/Y8-2tS9lth4J. To

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

The thing is, we aren't trying to "scientifically correct" statistics. What we're aiming to say is, "This is not so wildly different as to be of any concern." We aren't looking for minor difference, but orders of magnitude difference. If you are that worried about a <2% difference in speed, you

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Clelland wrote: > > Unscientifically, trunk without the Python 3 patches runs 1.5% faster w/ > > SQLite, 0.6% faster w/ MySQL. (based on a sample size of 1 :) ) >

Re: FileField should be a context manager

On Thursday, December 8, 2011 11:36:53 PM UTC+1, Alex_Gaynor wrote: > It isn't alreayd?!?! All file objects django exposes should be context > managers, I thought I added that to a base mixin class a while ago, but > apparently I didn't add it to the right thing. > Your memory serves you

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

On Dec 9, 4:36 pm, Tom Evans wrote: > I know you put the word 'unscientifically' in there, but you can draw > no conclusions from doing one run of each like that. See my reply > earlier in the week on how to simply and easily do valid statistical > testing. > >

Re: Admin inlines and fieldsets

This was not my intention at all. The discussion on the ticket at https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10938 suggested opening a discussion to prove a case for this. I was merely pointing out why I thought it might be useful, since I ran into a case where this would've been convenient. I

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Clelland wrote: > Unscientifically, trunk without the Python 3 patches runs 1.5% faster w/ > SQLite, 0.6% faster w/ MySQL. (based on a sample size of 1 :) ) > I know you put the word 'unscientifically' in there, but you can draw no

Re: Python 3 port - all MySQL tests now pass on 2.6.7 and 3.2.2 with the same codebase

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: > > On Dec 8, 11:39 pm, Ian Clelland wrote: > > I now have Django passing its entire unit test suite with the MySQL and > > SQLite backends, on Python 2.6.7 and Python 3.2.2 > > Ian, > > Thanks for

Re: Admin inlines and fieldsets

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Cptn Obvious wrote: > You guys didn't hear? He actually needs that, "right now". If you > could just get that into trunk ASAP, that'd be great. I need a train > car filled with gold bars, while you're at it. This sort of thing isn't OK

Re: Admin inlines and fieldsets

You guys didn't hear? He actually needs that, "right now". If you could just get that into trunk ASAP, that'd be great. I need a train car filled with gold bars, while you're at it. On Dec 7, 6:47 pm, Imposter wrote: > This is exactly what I've been struggling with today!  

Re: support for JSON RPC views

Are you kidding? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For

Re: Django-nonrel patches

On 09.12.2011, at 01:37, Jonas H. wrote: > On 12/08/2011 11:39 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jonas H. wrote: >>> 2.) I don't like wasting my time, so I won't write extensive documentation >>> before the patch gets accepted >> >> I'm sorry,