Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

> From the point of view of encouraging the usage of nose, either would > work fine. I think this is fits in to the conversation at DjangoCon > about how we should go about encouraging Django users to explore the > wider Python ecosystem. The important thing is that we can have some > official

Re: Proposal for 1.2: built-in logging with django.core.log

On Sep 30, 1:20 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > I was thinking that a calming, motherly "there there, it's all right, > the boogeymonster isn't real" would do the trick :-) I'll see what I can do... > > I suppose this is a big part of the problem. The logging

Re: Proposal for 1.2: built-in logging with django.core.log

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote: > > On Sep 29, 1:53 pm, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> >> However, since you're interested in feedback, my suggestion would be >> to look at every defense you've made of logging in this thread

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Sep 30, 5:47 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I'm yet to be convinced that Nose should be the default test runner > for the simple reason that it doesn't come out of the box with Python. > However, I agree that using Nose with Django should be as painless as >

Re: Proposal for 1.2: built-in logging with django.core.log

On Sep 29, 11:29 pm, Simon Willison wrote: > > Here's my understanding of what we need to do for Django. > > 1. Create a 'django' logger somewhere in the framework that will > always be executed if part of Django has been imported - would the > django/__init__.py file