Re: Feedback on ticket #12399

The second patch [1] fixes the memcached backend. [1] http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12399/memcached-timeout-fixes.diff -- Gert Mobile: +32 498725202 Web: http://gert.selentic.net On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:28, Kristian Klette wrote: > > It's a nasty bug

Re: Feedback on ticket #12399

> It's a nasty bug which leads to a 100% cache misses situation on > memcached when using long keys timeouts. Wouldn't it be better to fix this in the memcache backend itself? It does cause a backward compatibility problem for users that do takes this memcached behaviour into account in their

Re: Deleting related objects in the admin: patch for #6191

On Jan 26, 7:24 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I'll put it on my list. It will probably still be a 'post 1.2-beta' > activity, but I'll try to look at it at the start of the bugfixing > phase. Great, thanks. Looking forward your feedback. Carl -- You received this

Re: Pony request: refetch method to models

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jukka wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose adding a method to Model that can be used to fetch > a "fresh" version of a model object from the database. This isn't a completely unreasonble idea, but it is an unreasonable time to

Re: Deleting related objects in the admin: patch for #6191

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Carl Meyer wrote: > Hey all, > > During the Chicago sprint a few weeks ago I put together a patch for > #6191: the admin's "the following related objects will be deleted" > list in some cases omits items that actually are deleted (oops!).

Re: Feedback on ticket #12399

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Giuseppe Ciotta wrote: > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12399 > > It's a nasty bug which leads to a 100% cache misses situation on > memcached when using long keys timeouts. > > Do you think we can have this included in 1.2? Should i mark

Re: Feedback requested: One last time with multi-db

On Jan 23, 7:05 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > A full explanation, including an example is in the documentation > portion of the patch, attached to ticket #12542. > > Comments? This fixed our only (known) blocking problem towards 1.2, thanks so much. Brett -- You

Re: Pony request: refetch method to models

On Jan 26, 11:59 am, Jukka wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose adding a method to Model that can be used to fetch > a "fresh" version of a model object from the database. This is > something that I personally would often find useful. Usually this > happens when I'm

Deleting related objects in the admin: patch for #6191

Hey all, During the Chicago sprint a few weeks ago I put together a patch for #6191: the admin's "the following related objects will be deleted" list in some cases omits items that actually are deleted (oops!). The admin has its own routine for collecting related objects for notification,

Re: Proposal: errors with URLs in them

On 2010-01-21, at 3:53 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Andy McKay wrote: >> >> This is of course won't be possible for all errors or all parts of Django, >> but would work for some of the more common errors that crop up regularly. >> Would

Pony request: refetch method to models

Hi all, I'd like to propose adding a method to Model that can be used to fetch a "fresh" version of a model object from the database. This is something that I personally would often find useful. Usually this happens when I'm testing some view code using the test client, and the view is supposed

Feedback on ticket #12399

http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12399 It's a nasty bug which leads to a 100% cache misses situation on memcached when using long keys timeouts. Do you think we can have this included in 1.2? Should i mark it with Version:1.2 or something? The patch itself is trivial. -- You received this

Re: AnonymousUser has_perm/has_module_perms function check authentication backends

On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Harro wrote: > - If the default backend always returns false for anonymous users then > pluggable apps have to either expect some row level permission system > is installed and used or don't check permissions for things that an > anonymous user can access.

Re: AnonymousUser has_perm/has_module_perms function check authentication backends

On Tuesday 26 January 2010 12:12:23 Jari Pennanen wrote: > I read from "1.2 beta" thread that this might make it to the 1.2 > beta of Django, any status on that? Is someone trying to commit > the patches? Florian Apolloner pointed out that it had backwards incompatibility issues. I'm hoping

Re: AnonymousUser has_perm/has_module_perms function check authentication backends

I think so far we agree that we need to add something for anonymous users, because the added enhancement currently doesn't add enough to integrate row level permissions as they should be. The problems are: - Anonymous users should check the authentication backend for permissions, so it is

Re: Translation patch and the I18N mailinglist

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:04, Jannis Leidel wrote: > Am 25.01.2010 um 23:06 schrieb TiNo : > > > Hi, >> >> I posted a message [1] to the Django I18N list on the 28th of December. >> Apparently, it is also the last message to that list. Is the I18N list

Re: 1.2 beta?

On Tuesday 26 January 2010 11:30:45 Florian Apolloner wrote: > Hi, > > I am far away from beeing a commiter, but would like to get some > thoughts about the AnonymousUser permission checks written down > (I'll keep it short to not hijack this thread): By the time I > moved permission checks to

Re: 1.2 beta?

Am 26.01.2010 um 12:30 schrieb Florian Apolloner: > I am far away from beeing a commiter, but would like to get some > thoughts about the AnonymousUser permission checks written down (I'll > keep it short to not hijack this thread): By the time I moved > permission checks to the backends I didn't

Re: AnonymousUser has_perm/has_module_perms function check authentication backends

I read from "1.2 beta" thread that this might make it to the 1.2 beta of Django, any status on that? Is someone trying to commit the patches? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: 1.2 beta?

Hi, I am far away from beeing a commiter, but would like to get some thoughts about the AnonymousUser permission checks written down (I'll keep it short to not hijack this thread): By the time I moved permission checks to the backends I didn't thought much about anonymous users (I guess that was

Re: Translation patch and the I18N mailinglist

Am 25.01.2010 um 23:06 schrieb TiNo : Hi, I posted a message [1] to the Django I18N list on the 28th of December. Apparently, it is also the last message to that list. Is the I18N list dead? No, the mailing list isn't dead :) Jannis -- You received this message

Re: Translation patch and the I18N mailinglist

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 01:55, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:06 AM, TiNo wrote: > > Hi, > > The reason I posted there was to see if anybody had any objections to the > > one-liner patch [2] I suggested for a dutch translation