On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Mike Scott wrote:
> The point here is that you were using a development source for your code.
> Understandably people have started using this source more and more due to
> the enhancements and features provided, and its general stability. But it
> is stated everywhere that
When did I blame anyone? I didn't even update to QS-RF yet. I just thought
it would be useful to put a big fat label on the website saying "hey trunk
just got a massive face lift".
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Mike Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
> The point here is that you were
David,
The point here is that you were using a development source for your code.
Understandably people have started using this source more and more due to
the enhancements and features provided, and its general stability. But it is
stated everywhere that the source is subject to change on a daily
I've been extremely busy over the last few weeks, and have rarely had
the chance to check the mailing list. I specifically disable email
updates from these because of all the mail I get each day. So sorry
for not having time (but I'm really not sorry).
On Apr 29, 5:50 pm, Kenneth Gonsalves
On 29-Apr-08, at 11:25 PM, David Cramer wrote:
> WILL BREAK" (I didn't even know QSRF was released until someone
> pointed it out to me)
must have been about a million messages congratulating malcolm on the
mailing list ...
--
regards
kg
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
lopers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
David Cramer wrote:
> When an api is limited how would you propose to extend it? You do it the way
> OO is built.
> When releases happen you can expect things to break. When they don't how do
> you expect to
> know when you are s
Le 29 avr. 08 à 22:38, David Cramer a écrit :
>
> Yes im aware of the backwards incompatibility page but that mostly
> covers the public api. A lot of time for our uses we have to go
> beyond just using the public api. This is another situation where
> having more releases could help :)
David Cramer said the following:
> If I update from python 2.4 to 2.5 I can expect some trouble unless I know
> what has changed. If I update trunk, which is what is considered the only
> real version to use right now, I may encounter problems that I wasn't
> expecting, especially since the
David Cramer wrote:
> When an api is limited how would you propose to extend it? You do it the way
> OO is built.
> When releases happen you can expect things to break. When they don't how do
> you expect to
> know when you are safe to update?
From this point of view it's never "safe" to
-Original Message-
From: James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:57 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:54 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I update from python 2.4 to 2.5 I can expe
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:54 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I update from python 2.4 to 2.5 I can expect some trouble unless I know
> what has changed. If I update trunk, which is what is considered the only
> real version to use right now, I may encounter problems that I
.
-Original Message-
From: James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:46 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:38 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes im aware of the backwards incom
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:38 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes im aware of the backwards incompatibility page but that mostly covers
> the public api. A lot of time for our uses we have to go beyond just using
> the public api. This is another situation where having more
AIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:25 PM
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: QSRF Related
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) This is a pretty major change to Django, and there's nothing on the
> > pag
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) This is a pretty major change to Django, and there's nothing on the
> > page that says "HEY WE JUST CHANGED THE ENTIRE DBAPI ALL YOUR HACKS
> > WILL BREAK" (I didn't even know QSRF was released until someone
>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 3) This is a pretty major change to Django, and there's nothing on the
> page that says "HEY WE JUST CHANGED THE ENTIRE DBAPI ALL YOUR HACKS
> WILL BREAK" (I didn't even know QSRF was released until someone
> pointed
> 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
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) I thought the very smple example explained it. Selecting on a
> related field which already is present (so naming the select field
> something that exists) would cause it to disappear, no errors, no
> warnings.
2) I thought the very smple example explained it. Selecting on a
related field which already is present (so naming the select field
something that exists) would cause it to disappear, no errors, no
warnings.
3) This is a pretty major change to Django, and there's nothing on the
page that says
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) Is the issue still present if you do
> extra(select={'myforeignkeyname': 1}) ?
Is the issue still present where you didn't explain what you were asking about?
> 3) Most importantly. Is there a shiny new page in
David Cramer said the following:
> 3) Most importantly. Is there a shiny new page in the documentation
> that I don't see tagged somewhere that explains the new functionality?
> If so, can we tag it as "Updated" or whatever is appropriate :)
The doc pages were updated with qsrf, so when it
21 matches
Mail list logo
