On 27 Jan 2010, at 22:50, Ben Firshman wrote:
>
> On 27 Jan 2010, at 15:36, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> However, my initial impression: one way to dramatically increase your
>> chances is to make sure the patch applies to trunk, and passes all the
>> tests. Neither of these things are true
On 27 Jan 2010, at 15:36, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> However, my initial impression: one way to dramatically increase your
> chances is to make sure the patch applies to trunk, and passes all the
> tests. Neither of these things are true at present. Using the most
> recent patch on the ticket
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>>
>> I'm almost positive this is a dupe of another ticket, in the 3000-6000
>> range I think.
>
> The one I found was #901.
>
> Karen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are su
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> I'm almost positive this is a dupe of another ticket, in the 3000-6000
> range I think.
>
The one I found was #901.
Karen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
2010/1/27 Jukka Välimaa :
> Sounds reasonable. I couldn't find an existing ticket, so I made a new one,
> #12709.
> --Jukka
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Jukka wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'd like to propose adding a me
On Jan 27, 10:14 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> It isn't a simple patch. it's a 37k, 800 line diff.
Yes, although the length of the patch is not much of a clue about its
complexity (which is quite low IMO).
> It isn't really backwards compatible, either. It fundamentally changes
> the assum
Sounds reasonable. I couldn't find an existing ticket, so I made a new one,
#12709.
--Jukka
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> 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
>
For the method to be available conveniently, I would have to make it into a
single class, and then subclass all my other model classes from that. I
could do it, but if this is useful enough, it should be available by
default, without requiring every single person to write the method on their
own. A
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Ben Firshman wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2010, at 18:55, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
> Are we on track for releasing a 1.2 beta this week?
>
> That'd match our original schedule, but we did miss 1.2 alpha by a
> week or so, so perhaps we should push back the beta to match? O
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Harro wrote:
> +1
>
> Sick of explaining to dutch customers that I can't translate those
> texts in the admin.
This may be the case, but...
> It's a simple patch which doesn't break backwards compatibility at
> all.
...neither of these statements is correct.
I
+1
Sick of explaining to dutch customers that I can't translate those
texts in the admin.
It's a simple patch which doesn't break backwards compatibility at
all.
On Jan 27, 3:54 pm, Alex Robbins
wrote:
> This ticket adds label and verbose_name to apps. I know this would be
> very useful for lot
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Alex Robbins
wrote:
> This ticket adds label and verbose_name to apps. I know this would be
> very useful for lots of people.
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3591
>
> Is it too late for it to make it into 1.2? What can we do to make sure
> it makes it in fo
> I would then write a simple decorator which checks the backends for
> that flag to determine if we should do a login_required or has_perm
> check.
> Because a real pluggable app would want to support both :)
No it wouldn't. It would either use the permission system or the
decorator for login_requ
> some documentation should also be added.
+ Tests
The question is, whether we want `supports_anonymous_users` to go away
at some point or stay forever (I would prefer if it went away and
every backend had to support anonymous users; then the patch would
need the usual deprecation warnings…).
Che
This ticket adds label and verbose_name to apps. I know this would be
very useful for lots of people.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3591
Is it too late for it to make it into 1.2? What can we do to make sure
it makes it in for 1.3?
Thanks,
Alex
--
You received this message because you ar
On 25 Jan 2010, at 18:55, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
Are we on track for releasing a 1.2 beta this week?
That'd match our original schedule, but we did miss 1.2 alpha by a
week or so, so perhaps we should push back the beta to match? Or is
everyone happy with progress to date and ready to lock th
Added a patch to the ticket.
some documentation should also be added.
[1]
http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12557/supports_anonymous_users.diff
[2] http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/12557
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I think the `supports_anonymous_users` thing is the best and most
simple solution.
The anonymous user should then only call has_perm/has_module_perms on
backends that have that set.
I would then write a simple decorator which checks the backends for
that flag to determine if we should do a login_
18 matches
Mail list logo
