Re: Migration Questioner and String-Type Fields

2016-09-09 Thread Tim Graham
Sure, but I don't think that use case should take priority. It's not much work to type an empty string into the questioner if that's what you want. If we remove the prompt, it's significantly more work (editing a migration file or using RunPython) for a developer to set a non-empty value. On

Re: Migration Questioner and String-Type Fields

2016-09-09 Thread Jarek Glowacki
Instances created afterwards, via `MyModel.objects.create()`, with this field unset won't pass form validation either. The use case is where this field is not expected to appear on a Django form. On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 11:58:38 PM UTC+10, Tim Graham wrote: > > If blank=False, then a new

Re: Sonar for the Django rpoject

2016-09-09 Thread Ivan Sevastoyanov
Hello, I installed some older versions of SonarQube and unfortunately the rules are not the same and the report generated is not full. But I reviewed the issues and I did not find any security issues or something that is absolutely critical. There are 40 major issues that are marked as bugs.

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Chris Foresman
I'm looking forward to contributing however I can to the project! Exciting news! On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The Technical Board approved Channels as an official Django project as per > DEP 7, and so the repositories have been

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Tim Graham wrote: > Yea, I don't know. I guess it's tough to get feedback when few people have > a deep understanding of the technical details. That's at least why I didn't > have any feedback to offer. Proposing it in the middle of the

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Tim Graham
Yea, I don't know. I guess it's tough to get feedback when few people have a deep understanding of the technical details. That's at least why I didn't have any feedback to offer. Proposing it in the middle of the summer when people are on generally on vacation might have contributed to the

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
I agree some discussion would be nice, but I tried several times to start some and was met with silence each time. Given the generally positive reaction I've had from everyone I spoke to about the idea, I took it to the technical board, which seemed better than just sitting around with nothing

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Tim Graham
Thanks, what is missing to me is the technical discussions. Now, I see there is a draft DEP: https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/draft/0006-channels.rst. If that was shared to this list, I missed it. Perhaps it would have inspired some discussion in your proposal [0] which didn't get

Re: Logging config tries too hard

2016-09-09 Thread Carl Meyer
On 09/08/2016 11:31 PM, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > I'm not familiar with the current deprecation policy in Django. If you > can point me to it, I could probably carve some time in the nearby > future and prepare a pull request. Here is the deprecation policy:

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
Of course - here is the email I sent to the board: --- Hello everyone, As per DEP 7 (https://github.com/django/deps/blob/master/final/0007-offic ial-projects.rst), I would like to propose Channels as an official Django project. Specifically, I would like to have the following repos as official

Re: Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Tim Graham
Could you please share the information that you submitted to the technical board as per the DEP: "The Shepherd will submit the project, the list of people signed up for the Maintenance Team, and the collated arguments to the Technical Board for decision." In hindsight, I expected that

Channels is now an official Django project!

2016-09-09 Thread Andrew Godwin
Hi everyone, The Technical Board approved Channels as an official Django project as per DEP 7, and so the repositories have been moved under the django/ project on GitHub, as well as a few other things the DEP requires, and improving the contribution guidelines and triaging tickets. You can read

Re: Why doesn't BinaryField use BINARY type?

2016-09-09 Thread Chris Foresman
That's actually pretty helpful, and sort of gets me closer the what I was proposing. I'm just perplexed why there's no support for the VARBINARY type similar to the VARCHAR used for CharField. Admittedly I've never had call to use this type before, but I just found it surprising that there

Re: Migration Questioner and String-Type Fields

2016-09-09 Thread Tim Graham
If blank=False, then a new column with a non-blank value means that all existing objects won't pass form validation. Therefore, I don't see why a prompt for a value isn't helpful. On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 6:42:02 AM UTC-4, Jarek Glowacki wrote: > > I made a rant/ticket regarding the

Re: Creating page types programatically

2016-09-09 Thread Daniele Procida
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016, Patrick Heneghan wrote: >It might help for me to explain this in context - for example, I'm going to >have a "post type" called "blog", which should have title and content >fields, and then "event", which should have additional location, date,

Re: Logging config tries too hard

2016-09-09 Thread Claude Paroz
Le vendredi 9 septembre 2016 07:31:42 UTC+2, Ivan Sagalaev a écrit : > I think the best end result would be one where LOGGING simply defines the >> full config and it is always applied (by Django) exactly once, and the >> defaults we want are set as the global default for LOGGING, and just >>