Re: [Discussion] Legacy documentation / Boken docs Django v1.2

I see no reason to remove old versions from readthedocs. On 17 February 2016 at 04:22, Felipe Prenholato wrote: > I was catch by that change today and found the docs in > http://django.readthedocs.org/en/1.5.x/. > > I wan't to suggest that for documentations that Django will remove from > docs.d

Re: Composite Primary Keys

Hi, We've got some patches that we are using in production, against 1.8 . Out long term aim would be to get them ready for a PR , but I they are missing all sorts of things, such unit tests and migrations (we don't use migrations at the moment - long story, so these haven't been tested). The othe

Re: [Discussion] Legacy documentation / Boken docs Django v1.2

IMHO We should keep the older version of docs somewhere, ReadTheDocs it's fine. But we can't only remove them. We may notice the users instead of returning a simple 404. There are a lot of people still using those versions. To keep happy search engines, we should give a 301 to somewhere, not sure

Re: [Discussion] Legacy documentation / Boken docs Django v1.2

+1 Yes, you should upgrade, but the reality is that some people have old versions lying around. They should be _somewhere_, be it 'hard' to find. A PDF or Epub is fine as well, that removes the need to maintain the build of the docs for unsupported versions. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at

Re: [Discussion] Legacy documentation / Boken docs Django v1.2

Well, that made me sad (and confused) yesterday when I suddenly couldn't find docs via either djangoproject.com OR Google for some topics for 1.4 (we're in the process of upgrading a large and crufty codebase from 1.4 to 1.8 via 1.6). Please at least don't eliminate the readthedocs versions in

Re: thinking about the admin's scope and its description in the docs

Here's another try for the docs: One of the most powerful parts of Django is the automatic admin interface. It reads metadata from your models to provide a quick, model-centric interface where trusted users can manage content on your site. The admin's recommended use is limited to an organization

Re: thinking about the admin's scope and its description in the docs

That looks like a good balanced message to me. On 17 February 2016 at 16:57, Tim Graham wrote: > Here's another try for the docs: > > One of the most powerful parts of Django is the automatic admin interface. > It > reads metadata from your models to provide a quick, model-centric interface > wh

Re: thinking about the admin's scope and its description in the docs

+1 -- Aymeric. > On 17 févr. 2016, at 18:16, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > > That looks like a good balanced message to me. > > On 17 February 2016 at 16:57, Tim Graham > wrote: > Here's another try for the docs: > > One of the most powerful parts of Django is the automa

Re: remove support for unsalted password hashers?

To answer my own question, I did a little experiment and cracked about 10% of the SHA1 password hashes in the djangoproject.com database in minutes on my several year old PC. I think that's sufficiently weak to: 1. Make a blog post recommending that projects upgrade using the instructions in [1

% vs {} string formatting for public APIs

Hi, I noticed that some Django public APIs use the % old-style string formatting while others use the {} new-style formatting. For example: {} style * success_url [0] (Converted to {} in 1.8) * format_html [1] % style * ValidationError [2] * related_name [3] Is this difference intentional?

Re: Composite Primary Keys

Sounds cool, I think we would totally use that. On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:55:15 AM UTC-8, Roger Gammans wrote: > > Hi, > > > We've got some patches that we are using in production, against > 1.8 . Out long term aim would be to get them ready for a PR , but I they > are missing all s