Hi, On May 7, 5:37 pm, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote: > So far as I know there 4 open ticks remaining related to r9766. Three are > regressions so I believe something really needs to be done about them before > 1.1; one I think is just a bug in the new function. Personally I'd rather > not revert the new function at this point (it's been available in the > alpha/beta releases, it would be nasty to pull it at this point). However, > reverting the part of r9766 that delayed saving the file to the backend > until model save (in the case where a ModelForm is used to create a model) > may be necessary to fix the last of the four problems, unless we want to > document that one as a backwards-incompatible change. I'm working with Alex on that right now here in Prague. We have some branches on github related to that. Basically the idea is to start with getting rid of some of the over engineering in the abstract base classes and make sure the subclasses call the constructors properly. Once that works we should be able to fix all the "method missing on temporary file" tickets that are currently just worked around. The fixing of the problems caused by the changeset will be covered by that branch as well.
> The four tickets I know of are: > > #10249: > #10300: > #10404: > #10788: We're working on that. We'll report back some status when we get the existing testcases passing again :) Regards, Armin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
