On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 15:44 -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> In the end, *my* requirement is that I have *some place* to put
> validation code that 1) can see the whole model instance, 2) will be run
> from the admin interface, and 3) will return nice validation failures to
> the user (not throw exce
Realizing my original statement I was regarding this thread, in this
thread, it's obvious that this has gone completely off track. I might
have to take back everything I thought about this being useful.
If you want to address a SPECIFIC concern, it makes sense to do that
under its own topic. Think
In the end, *my* requirement is that I have *some place* to put
validation code that 1) can see the whole model instance, 2) will be run
from the admin interface, and 3) will return nice validation failures to
the user (not throw exceptions that will give the user a 500 error and
send me an email).
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:03 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> Ok, problem solved:
When I apply this patch I get six test failures.
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@google
Ok, problem solved:
``Model.full_clean()``
def full_clean(self, exclude=None, validate_unique=True):
"""
Calls clean_fields, clean, and validate_unique, on the model,
and raises a ``ValidationError`` for any errors that occured.
"""
errors = {}
Jacob,
With respect, If I simply "trusted" folks, I would be:
1) making exactly 120k less per year, as my previous employers told me
to "trust" them right before they went out of business and fired
everyone
2) a lot less intelligent than I am
3) ignoring the advice of Benjamin Franklin "it is the
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:55 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
> told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple
> change couldn't be put in the trunk. It is backward compatible. If I'm
> wrong, it would suffice to have
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Richard Laager wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:55 -0700, orokusaki wrote:
>> With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
>> told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple
>> change couldn't be put in the trunk. It i
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:55 -0700, orokusaki wrote:
> With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
> told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple
> change couldn't be put in the trunk. It is backward compatible. If I'm
> wrong, it would suffice to hav
Russell,
With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You
told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple
change couldn't be put in the trunk. It is backward compatible. If I'm
wrong, it would suffice to have a simple explanation of what it
breaks.
On Apr
One of the main advantages of Django over other web frameworks is
twofold:
1. Almost anything can be overridden with a custom backend (auth, e-
mail, context processors, middleware, etc.)
2. Custom backends can be plugged in side-by-side with "stock"
backends
What functionality do you feel is hol
On Monday 19 April 2010 08:50:58 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> I was going to do a point by point teardown, but then I realized
> that I already have, at DjangoCon 2009:
>
> http://djangocon.blip.tv/file/3043562/
>
> The opening is light hearted; the hard details start about 5
> minutes in. By sh
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> Russell,
>
> I apologize for the apparent argumentum ad nauseam. I am not trying to
> be sly. I am just looking for open dialogue about ideas and I feel
> like the door is closed and caucus is frowned upon. This is the only
> way I feel like I ca
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:10 AM, David Cramer wrote:
> I just want to throw my 2 cents into the ring here. I'm not against a
> fork, but at the same time I want to see the Django mainline progress.
> However, let me tell you my story, and how I've seen the Django
> development process over the yea
I agree almost whole-heartedly with the perception that David
portrays. His feelings almost mirror mine. Albeit I haven't submitted
contributions to the django development process I've been involved
with a number of issues and come away with similar feelings viewing
the process.
I love what those
Russell,
I apologize for the apparent argumentum ad nauseam. I am not trying to
be sly. I am just looking for open dialogue about ideas and I feel
like the door is closed and caucus is frowned upon. This is the only
way I feel like I can get any floor time. The tickets I create get
closed quickly,
I just want to throw my 2 cents into the ring here. I'm not against a
fork, but at the same time I want to see the Django mainline progress.
However, let me tell you my story, and how I've seen the Django
development process over the years.
I started with Django 4 years ago. It was cool, shiny, an
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 5:23 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> Russell,
>
> This is what I meant by "straw hat" the other day. You took what I
> said out of context in a sly attempt at ignoratio elenchi. I made it
> clear in the first paragraph that **I started out thinking you were
> closed minded**, but th
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Apr 17, 3:47 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>
>> For the record, there are 62 tickets marked ready for checkin, not 400
>> [1]. 29 of those are documentation and translation patches (5 of which
>> are specifically marked for inclusion
On Apr 17, 9:47 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> I would also point out the folly of looking at raw ticket counts.
> Python (the language) has 1078 tickets in the "having patch" status,
> and 96 in the "needing review" status. Does this mean that Python is a
> project in crisis?
>
> Yes, there is
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 14:23 -0700, orokusaki wrote:
> 4) The attitude projected at developers gives the idea that Django is
> for the core team only, and that users are graced with the ability to
> use Django. While the contribution is much appreciated, the attitude
> is harmful to the core team a
Russell,
This is what I meant by "straw hat" the other day. You took what I
said out of context in a sly attempt at ignoratio elenchi. I made it
clear in the first paragraph that **I started out thinking you were
closed minded**, but then said that **I later realized that you were
just busy**. I w
On Apr 17, 3:47 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> For the record, there are 62 tickets marked ready for checkin, not 400
> [1]. 29 of those are documentation and translation patches (5 of which
> are specifically marked for inclusion in 1.2).
>
> [1]http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new&s
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Stephen Wolff wrote:
> I feel quite sad reading this thread. Good luck completing 1.2. I only wish
> I had time and energy to contribute. I suggest the core team ignore the
> thread for now if at all possible.
>
Yes, let's ignore the users and all the other major
The work of the core team is outstanding and I find that the process of
development
is to be taken as an example.
Unfortunately, customers often want features, but we are programmers,
engineers,
and we know who we are and what is our role.
Compatibility is strongly important when choosing a tool.
I feel quite sad reading this thread. Good luck completing 1.2. I only wish
I had time and energy to contribute. I suggest the core team ignore the
thread for now if at all possible.
On 17 Apr 2010 14:47, "Russell Keith-Magee" wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, George Sakkis
wrote:
> On Ap
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:14 PM, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:35 am, "Tom X. Tobin" wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>>
>> wrote:
>> > However, at this point, I would like to tell you a story about four
>> > people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, Nobody
On Apr 17, 5:35 am, "Tom X. Tobin" wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
> wrote:
> > However, at this point, I would like to tell you a story about four
> > people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, Nobody.
>
> This is exactly why I try not to bitch too much about Dj
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> For one, there is no split between a -users mailing list and a
> -developers mailing list. Understand that the Bazaar mailing list is
> just as active as django-developers (so less active than -users +
> -developers). But it does have on
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Tom X. Tobin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> However, at this point, I would like to tell you a story about four
>> people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, Nobody.
>
> This is exactly why I try not to bitch too much a
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> However, at this point, I would like to tell you a story about four
> people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, Nobody.
This is exactly why I try not to bitch too much about Django's
development process. It's very easy to complain,
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:02 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> When I first started posting things on trac, I put up a request that
> took me an hour to create, explaining the justification, as well as
> putting the code in there. I didn't know how to make a patch, and I
> went about it the wrong way, but re
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:30 AM, George Sakkis wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:57 pm, Kevin Howerton wrote:
>
>> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
>> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
>> contributions in the first place. Why should I c
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM, sago wrote:
>>
>> On a completely unrelated note, any plans to move Django to git?
>
> I answered this exact question earlier in this thread. The answer is
> no, because it would make exactly no differ
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM, sago wrote:
>
> On a completely unrelated note, any plans to move Django to git?
I answered this exact question earlier in this thread. The answer is
no, because it would make exactly no difference to anything. Search
out the earlier answer for more detail.
Your
On Apr 15, 8:57 pm, Kevin Howerton wrote:
> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
> contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to
> your flawed architecture if I'm going
On Apr 15, 8:57 pm, Kevin Howerton wrote:
> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
> contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to
> your flawed architecture if I'm going
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, orokusaki wrote:
>...
> I think I speak for a pretty broad user base when I say that folks who
> use Django are bleeding edge developers who want cool stuff, and don't
> mind paying a little extra to have it. It isn't like IBM and Microsoft
> are using Django for
When I first started posting things on trac, I put up a request that
took me an hour to create, explaining the justification, as well as
putting the code in there. I didn't know how to make a patch, and I
went about it the wrong way, but regardless of that, I put a lot of
thought into it. Less than
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Taylor Marshall
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Tom X. Tobin
> wrote:
>> None of this means that I think the core development process should
>> change. (Well, besides my fervent desire that they officially adopted
>> git — and yes, I do believe it *wo
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Taylor Marshall
wrote:
> There's already a unofficial mirror on GitHub which is maintained by jezdez:
AFAIK there are mirrors on pretty much every DVCS/"social code"
hosting site; bitbucket's got one as well, for example.
--
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technica
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Tom X. Tobin wrote:
> None of this means that I think the core development process should
> change. (Well, besides my fervent desire that they officially adopted
> git — and yes, I do believe it *would* make a difference, centralized
> "official" branch and all —
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Tom X. Tobin wrote:
> But here's the great part: nothing is stoping anyone from hacking new
Argh, the snoot in me just winced at re-reading my post and noticing
that I misspelled "stopping". ::hangs head::
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
Isn't that what forking is for?
A group of folks feel frustrated about not being able to commit, so
they make their own copy of the source code available. A few months
later they either implode when they realise just how much work it is
going to take to do anything remotely sensible, or they come
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I'm not arguing that "stability, maturity, and longevity" are
> "correct" priorities, only that, well, those are the ones we've
> chosen. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to want more rapid improvement,
> only that it's lower on *my* list.
M
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Mike wrote:
> On Apr 15, 3:32 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>> For better or worse, we've chosen a development policy that
>> prioritizes stability, maturity, and longevity. If those aren't your
>> priorities, then perhaps a fork is the right answer.
>>
> Correct m
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Mike wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I read it as "If you do not like our
> policy then stability, maturity, and longevity aren't your priorities".
> With all due respect it is not fair.
But isn't that exactly what people in this thread are saying? The main
c
On Apr 15, 3:32 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> For better or worse, we've chosen a development policy that
> prioritizes stability, maturity, and longevity. If those aren't your
> priorities, then perhaps a fork is the right answer.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read it as "If you do not like ou
38:01
To:
Subject: Re: High Level Discussion about the Future of Django
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Howerton
wrote:
> "You seem to be suggesting that a fork will somehow magically fix the
> speed of Django development. I ask you: who is going to work on this
> fork?"
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Howerton
wrote:
> "You seem to be suggesting that a fork will somehow magically fix the
> speed of Django development. I ask you: who is going to work on this
> fork?"
>
> I think a hostile fork is almost a certain outcome if development
> continues as it has
"That is, in fact, our policy. 1.1 is compatible with 1.0; 1.2 with 1.1; etc."
1.1 and 1.2 are by definition not point releases. Point releases
don't introduce new features.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Howerton
> wrote:
>>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Kevin Howerton
wrote:
> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
> contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to
> your flawed architecture i
"You seem to be suggesting that a fork will somehow magically fix the
speed of Django development. I ask you: who is going to work on this
fork?"
I think a hostile fork is almost a certain outcome if development
continues as it has. Not only is the resistance to make backwards
incompatible change
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:34 PM, veena wrote:
> I know there's django deprecation policy nicely documented
> http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.1/internals/release-process/#internal-release-deprecation-policy
>
> But what I don't know is how you discover it. Is it described
> somewhere in the tex
Thanks for opening this discussion.
Am I only one who see the django improvement process too slow? I mean
refactoring, decoupling and making code more reusable in the time when
we realize that previous design has too much constraints and there
should be better design now.
I know there's django de
On Apr 5, 4:37 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> However, we can't seriously start talking about Python 3 until:
>
> * all the downstream vendors (DB-API implementations, mod_wsgi, etc)
> have viable Python 3 implementations, and
Hmmm, mod_wsgi has had working Python 3.0 support for over a year
@Everyone who has commented here.
I never intended to cause any animosity and I really appreciate
everything that the core team does for us all.
@Jacob
I really do intend to write code. I make money doing non-Django
development but I love Django so much that I spend 25+ hours a week
not getting
On ma, 2010-04-05 at 23:25 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> I'll freely admit that despite the major improvements landing in 1.2,
> the development cycle itself hasn't been flawless. Hopefully I've been
> able to provide some explanation for why things ended up the way they
> did.
You have, th
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Dennis Kaarsemaker
wrote:
> On ma, 2010-04-05 at 21:47 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> The bit that I have been engaging with is the discussion of (and
>> apparent misconceptions around) Django's backwards compatibility
>> policy, and our policies regarding
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Dennis Kaarsemaker
wrote:
> Not a criticism per se, but I am wondering why the next 1.1.x is
> released alongside 1.2 instead of as a release on its own. I've yet
> again seen a case of python 2.6.5 breaking django tests, so I would
> welcome a new release of 1.1.x
On ma, 2010-04-05 at 21:47 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> The bit that I have been engaging with is the discussion of (and
> apparent misconceptions around) Django's backwards compatibility
> policy, and our policies regarding support for older Python versions.
And I appreciate that you have
On Apr 5, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Without trying to defend anyone or anything here... Why ask other
> developers to ignore an otherwise healthy discussion?
> I believe Russ engaged in the discussion because he's interested; if
> not in the idea, at least in discussing it. Not
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> Without trying to defend anyone or anything here... Why ask other
> developers to ignore an otherwise healthy discussion?
> I believe Russ engaged in the discussion because he's interested; if
> not in the idea, at least in discussing it.
Without trying to defend anyone or anything here... Why ask other
developers to ignore an otherwise healthy discussion?
I believe Russ engaged in the discussion because he's interested; if
not in the idea, at least in discussing it. Not everything has to be
backed up with code...
J. Leclanche / Ad
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:02 PM, orokusaki wrote:
> This is a bit abstract, but I'd like to bring up this idea, [...]
Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't have time to engage on big abstract
discussions like this, so feel free to write whatever you want, but
don't count on my participation. I'm also
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> The Right Solution for that is officially supporting Python 2.old in
> Django 1.old, and eventually backporting minor features/fixes in
> Django 1.old. The tradeoff here depends on what takes the most
> development time: Backporting feature
The Right Solution for that is officially supporting Python 2.old in
Django 1.old, and eventually backporting minor features/fixes in
Django 1.old. The tradeoff here depends on what takes the most
development time: Backporting features and fixes, or hacking
compatibility with an old version of the
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> If you're going to use such an ancient version of a distribution, you
> are only crippling yourself. As you said yourself, you should move on;
> if someone is using Python 2.3, they can use Django 1.1/1.2. If they
> want all-new 1.3 feature
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Dennis Kaarsemaker
wrote:
> On ma, 2010-04-05 at 14:37 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> For some perspective - even though Python 3.1 is out, dropping support
>> for Python 2.3 in Django 1.2 is being greeted as controversial in some
>> circles because RedHat E
If you're going to use such an ancient version of a distribution, you
are only crippling yourself. As you said yourself, you should move on;
if someone is using Python 2.3, they can use Django 1.1/1.2. If they
want all-new 1.3 features, then updating Python/distro should not be a
roadblock.
This i
On ma, 2010-04-05 at 14:37 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> For some perspective - even though Python 3.1 is out, dropping support
> for Python 2.3 in Django 1.2 is being greeted as controversial in some
> circles because RedHat Enterprise Linux 5 is still officially
> supported by RedHat, and
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM, orokusaki wrote:
> This is a bit abstract, but I'd like to bring up this idea, and
> firstly let me say that I don't intend to waste the time of the major
> contributors (unless you want to join in of course). I mostly want to
> get an idea of what some of the cont
If you haven't already, take a read through the "internals" section of
the docs. It covers a number of the questions you've asked about
deprecation, what can be changed in minor (1.x) releases, etc.
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/
They were definitely interesting for me.
Being a
This is a bit abstract, but I'd like to bring up this idea, and
firstly let me say that I don't intend to waste the time of the major
contributors (unless you want to join in of course). I mostly want to
get an idea of what some of the contributors/feature proposers out
there are thinking of, in a
74 matches
Mail list logo
