On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7524 is tagged as post-1.0.
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8221 was closed as duplicate of
> #7524, which it is not.
In triaging, I'm trying to take the position that all of the various
On Aug 24, 4:40 am, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM, mrts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8221 was closed as duplicate of
> > #7524, which it is not.
>
> In triaging, I'm trying to take the position that all of the v
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/7524 is tagged as post-1.0.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8221 was closed as duplicate of
#7524, which it is not.
On Aug 23, 9:40 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 10:46 -0700, mrts wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I person
On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 10:46 -0700, mrts wrote:
[...]
> I personally think both should make it into 1.0, but James seems to
> oppose, so can we discuss this a bit further?
The ticket is open. It will either be committed, postponed or closed as
a dupe of something else. Let's leave it at that and
It is quite common to be hit by the insufficiently verbose reporting
that #8221 and #7524 fix -- e.g. see the duplicates that have popped
up.
As I already said, #8221 is only needed because the patch I provided
in #8177 and that got commited fixed only the most burning issue I was
directly hit wi
