On Feb 19, 5:20 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> After a fair bit of head scratching and chasing code paths, I think I
> managed to fix this in the correct way. The update is in revision r4542.
> The problem hadn't ever shown up before because we weren't correctly
> handling min
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 06:02 -0800, Rudolph wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I found a bug introduced in changeset 4500 (http://
> code.djangoproject.com/changeset/4500). When a min_num_in_admin is
> specified without a num_in_admin, the "add" view in the admin
> interface gives an exception (and possibly
On Feb 15, 10:53 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 06:02 -0800, Rudolph wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I think I found a bug introduced in changeset 4500 (http://
> > code.djangoproject.com/changeset/4500). When a min_num_in_admin is
> > specified without a num_in_adm
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 06:02 -0800, Rudolph wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I found a bug introduced in changeset 4500 (http://
> code.djangoproject.com/changeset/4500). When a min_num_in_admin is
> specified without a num_in_admin, the "add" view in the admin
> interface gives an exception (and possibly
Hi,
I think I found a bug introduced in changeset 4500 (http://
code.djangoproject.com/changeset/4500). When a min_num_in_admin is
specified without a num_in_admin, the "add" view in the admin
interface gives an exception (and possibly the change view as wel, I
didn't test that). Does anyone else
