Re: getting django 1.7 out the door

You rock, Andrew. On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > Solved it now! For those interested, deconstruct() was not including > related_name, with the result that both a ForeignKey and a ManyToMany had > the same related_name, and it turns out that Django

Re: getting django 1.7 out the door

Solved it now! For those interested, deconstruct() was not including related_name, with the result that both a ForeignKey and a ManyToMany had the same related_name, and it turns out that Django really doesn't like this, and there's a reason model validation complains about it. Andrew On Thu,

getting django 1.7 out the door

Hi All, If anyone's looking for ways to help get 1.7 out the door, there's a strange but reproducible many-to-many ORM bug happening in migrations. We could use some help narrowing down the cause of it. https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/23288 Thanks, Collin -- You received this message

Re: Requiring GitHub login for actions on Trac

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augustin.2...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Hi Russell, > > It seemed to me that this page wasn't nearly as good an introduction to > contributing to Django as the contributing guide from the official docs, so > I trimmed it and pointed to

Re: [GSOC] Weekly update

Also, I still believe that just because "class Meta:" stole the word "meta", doesn't mean we should take what it should really be called ("options") and put it on this. Can we call the two "meta options api" and "meta fields api"? or "meta schema api". -- You received this message because you

Re: Requiring GitHub login for actions on Trac

I just discovered this change (require Github for login) today and had a hard time finding this discussion. Maybe a link in the wiki would help? While I agree with the decision to move on to Github Login (finally no more basic auth!) I'd like to have a way to merge my two accounts. Especially

Re: [GSOC] Weekly update

Summarizing the conversation I just had with Daniel in IRC: What if we thought about just documenting the high-level api, like what ModelForms uses, and not necessarily document what the django low levels: ORM, migrations, etc would need to use. Could we get away with not documenting

Re: Master/slave trolling pull request accepted to django master branch

Master/Slave +0 The discusion of this terminology is only for trollers and non technical professionals. On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of > Trac tickets that could use

Re: Master/slave trolling pull request accepted to django master branch

Ah yes, such a brilliant way to engage legitimate concerns from community. *slow caps* I'm out, it's been a fun 5 years guys, take care. Cal On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of >

Re: Master/slave trolling pull request accepted to django master branch

This topic is closed and no replies will be tolerated. There are plenty of Trac tickets that could use attention. Thank-you! On Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:56:01 PM UTC-4, Andre Terra wrote: > > That is one great suggestion. +1 and as long as nobody -1s it, we're good > to go! > On Aug 12,

Re: [GSOC] Weekly update

Hi All, Since last week, the new API has changed: we went from 5 field types to 9 field types. Below is a list of all field types, the bold ones are the ones that have just been added. * pure data (CharField etc) * * relation data (FK)* * pure virtual (Point) * * relation virtual (GFK)* *

Re: Master/slave trolling pull request accepted to django master branch

That is one great suggestion. +1 and as long as nobody -1s it, we're good to go! On Aug 12, 2014 11:17 AM, "Robert Grant" wrote: > I'd really, really like it if we were to stop saying a UI element is > "disabled" and say "differently abled". > > Thanks > > > On Tuesday,

Re: Requiring GitHub login for actions on Trac

I was looking at the wiki page myself a few weeks ago an noticed it was horribly out of date. I might be nice to keep that page minimal (maybe just a few links to other pages) because normal users aren't allowed to edit it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [RFC] Python 3 and MySQL

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:41:22 AM UTC+9, Tim Graham wrote: > > I'd like see some community consensus on the best solution for a MySQL > adapter rather than than have more than one build for MySQL. > > I don't know the MySQL ecosystem very well. Naoki, is there no interest > from MySQLdb

Re: Requiring GitHub login for actions on Trac

Hi Russell, It seemed to me that this page wasn't nearly as good an introduction to contributing to Django as the contributing guide from the official docs, so I trimmed it and pointed to the docs instead. In fact, I started by removing incorrect or outdated information — for instance, the

Re: ORM Optimization for filtering by related existence

On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 02:39 +0300, Shai Berger wrote: > > So, both filters must target the same join > > I don't see how this follows -- separate joins will each have the same set of > related records. True, the query results will be correct for exists lookup (but not for most other lookups if