Hi Karen,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Karen Tracey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a suggestion to help ensure that Django 1.0 gives a good first
> impression to new users: line up some install testers for the gamut of
> supported platforms, and have these testers verify (prior to
Django Search (http://djangosearch.com/) – great aggregator and Google
custom search of community blogs and projects by Alex Aster. Also
check out his blog for some interesting posts.
Django Blog Search
(http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012993260288651340677%3A3fwy29agfd4)
by Kevin Fricovsky
> 1) order_by() resets the ordering, but select_related() does not.
> Would it not make more sense to keep APIs the same? So something like
> order_by(False) and a similar option for select_related?
David,
I asked about order_by not working generitively here
> I thought I'd give a quick note so nobody wonders: I'll be on an
> extended vacation April 21 - May 17th. I'll be checking email
> sporadically, but don't really expect anything from me while I'm gone.
> While I'm gone, of course, decisions and work should just go on
> without me -- I can
> > Although, you have a point, I have to say that limitation in order_by
> > bugs me as well. :)
>
> I think that's a case of learning to live with your disappointment. It
> would lead to a lot of counter-intuitive behaviour to make order_by()
> incremental, because the *first* ordering
> In my opinion the answer is this:
> 1. A BaseQuerySet that all internal Django calls could rely on staying
> the same.
> 2. A setting (DEFAULT_QUERYSET_CLASS for example) which, by default,
> points to BaseQuerySet, but could be changed to point to any sucblass
> of BaseQuerySet.
>
>
Rob,
If you want, check out the django-command-extensions project on Google
Code (http://code.google.com/p/django-command-extensions/). I added a
create_app command extension that allows you to use a --template
option for specifying your app directory structure. If no template is
provided a
> I'd like to deprecate initializing models using positional arguments
> (i.e. ``p = Person(1, 'Joe Somebody')``) in favor of only allowing
> keyword-argument initialization (i.e. ``p = Person(id=1, name='Joe
> Somebody')``).
+1 from me. I've been doing some interesting model stuff lately and
> Over-engineered? A documentation change, plus a one-line config
> change? Surely not! What would be the right amount of engineering,
> then?
Perhaps I misunderstood your proposal.
Michael Trier
blog.michaeltrier.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2891 was marked as a wontfix by
> jacob after "discussion with Malcolm".
>
> Neither Collin or myself (or several others on IRC) can see a reason
> why that this would cause any big disruption.
>
> Mr Trier even mentions it on his blog today as an example of
> > On 12/8/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The same is true of a weekly Django update message. There is
> > > absolutely nothing stopping you from writing a weekly blog message and
> > > publishing it somewhere.
> >
Just noticed this post. I'm glad to see that
On Dec 7, 2007 7:09 AM, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:25:03PM +1100, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > (or stop using app_loader, which is something I've been tending towards more
> > and more lately).
>
> And how does one do that?
>
Just remove
> The "Django Way" is essentially to work on the assumption that
> everything is as Django left it (or in a state that is compatible with
> Django's requirements). We provide handles to make integrating with
> legacy databases a little easier (such as allowing specification of
> db_column names,
Read this page entirely and it should help:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/contributing/
specifically regarding running a single test see:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/contributing/#running-the-unit-tests
Michael Trier
blog.michaeltrier.com
On Dec 1, 2007 3:53 PM,
14 matches
Mail list logo
