Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On Mar 2, 11:31 am, "Rubic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One possibility would be to allow max_length to be > used as a maxlength attribute so applications could > begin to future-proof. The patch for this is waiting for checkin (minus Honza's suggestion of a depreciation note)

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 17:39 -0500, Joseph Perla wrote: > They don't need to be in 0.96, but can someone at least check in the > tickets already decided as ready for check-in? > http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new=assigned=reopened=Ready+for+checkin > Some of these have been complete

Re: IntegrityError patch

Vadim Macagon wrote: > Just wanted to point out that I submitted a small patch to make > IntegrityError available directly from django.db. > > > > I've tested it on the postgresql and postgresql_psycopg2 backends, and > it'd be nice if people could

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

They don't need to be in 0.96, but can someone at least check in the tickets already decided as ready for check-in? http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new=assigned=reopened=Ready+for+checkin Some of these have been complete and ready for 2 months. j On 3/6/07, Simon G. <[EMAIL

Re: About triaging etc.

Thanks for your answers so far, great to see this discussion take off. On a personal level I'll take the advise given to heart for future contributions. Rgds, Jeroen --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Reworking the authentication and user-system (Was: Creating an independent auth/permission-framework, separate the models)

Sorry, I didn't change the subject on the last email, should have been this one then. If you don't know what I am talking about, please read the last email. (http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/msg/50f9393fa15251b3?hl=en) I have starting rewriting the auth-system now (""), code can

Re: About *Fields, newforms and lazyness

On Mar 6, 10:43 am, "David Larlet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know it's easy to type label= for all newforms fields but maybe we > can reorder arguments in newforms before 0.96? What's your opinion > about that? Am I the only one? -0 You'd be breaking the code of early newforms adopters for

Re: Upcoming Django release, and the future

#3625 ( http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3625 ) looks like a good candidate - it's a Python 2.3 issue with rsplit in the test system. It's been reported three times, so people are definitely running into it. 3625 has a simple patch to fix this. --Simon

About *Fields, newforms and lazyness

Hi, I got some troubles today with newforms. I use to create models fields with a first implicit verbose_name argument: email = models.EmailField("E-mail") Unfortunately newforms fields have quite similar argument (label) but it's not the first argument. Moreover, it's a bit annoying because I

Re: About triaging etc.

Malcolm Tredinnick: > On balance, I would prefer that bigger decisions (closing as wontfix or > moving to "ready for checkin") about tickets are made by a slightly > smaller, more experienced group, just because it reduces the chances of > having to back-track all the time. If somebody I don't