Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Luke Plant wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 22:29 +0100, I wrote: > >> Russell - beware - I think bitbucket has managed to create a very broken >> clone. I did a fork as well, and both of our repositories are missing >> thousands of commits.  I

Re: Problems with logging and Python 2.4

Dang - accidentally hit send. Let's try that again. 2010/10/6 Russell Keith-Magee : > 2010/10/6 Łukasz Rekucki : >> Hi, >> >> I'm getting a whole bunch of errors related to logging on Python 2.4:: >> >> ERROR: Missing templates are correctly reported

Re: Problems with logging and Python 2.4

2010/10/6 Łukasz Rekucki : > Hi, > > I'm getting a whole bunch of errors related to logging on Python 2.4:: > > ERROR: Missing templates are correctly reported by test client > -- > Traceback (most recent call

Re: AutoFields, legacy databases and non-standard sequence names.

On 06/10/10 16:02, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: Yes - questions of usage and requests for design guidance should be directed to Django-users. Unless you have a specific suggestion for how to move ticket #1946 forward, this isn't a topic for django-developers. Sorry, I should have been more

AutoFields, legacy databases and non-standard sequence names.

Hey guys, I'm using Django to create an interface for a legacy PostgresQL database. The primary keys for my tables use sequences that aren't named the way django expects them to be (i.e. '__seq'), this means I can't call them AutoFields. Essentially, my problem is identical to that

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

Thanks to everyone who's helping push this forward. I would get stuck in, but I'm bogged down with work at the moment. A couple of things from the wiki page that need doing: 1) Test coverage probably isn't great. Everything seems to work when I've used it in applications, but there's probably

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 22:29 +0100, I wrote: > Russell - beware - I think bitbucket has managed to create a very broken > clone. I did a fork as well, and both of our repositories are missing > thousands of commits. I can do a pull from django/django and I then get > a complete repository which

Problems with logging and Python 2.4

Hi, I'm getting a whole bunch of errors related to logging on Python 2.4:: ERROR: Missing templates are correctly reported by test client -- Traceback (most recent call last): File

Contributing "How To"

There has been repeated talk of putting together resources for new contributors in a way that's more accessible and to-the-point than the current contributing docs. Most recently Russell mentioned it in this thread:

Re: Site app should be able to make absolute URLs #10944

I added some feedback on the ticket. Looks like a good start! - Gabriel On Oct 4, 2:12 pm, Laurent Luce wrote: > Hello, > > I added a patch to this ticket http://code.djangoproject.com/ > ticket/10944">#10944 > > - add method get_url to Site model to return an

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 21:03 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Ok - so to kick the process into the next phase, I've just created a > Django branch in my bitbucket repo [1] to cover introducing this to > trunk. Russell - beware - I think bitbucket has managed to create a very broken clone. I

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Oct 5, 10:43 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > >  * Does django.views.generic.utils.coerce_put_post() indicate a change > > that needs to be made in Django? (Is there an existing ticket for > > this?) > > Yeah, this has been a wart in Django for a while -- Django doesn't >

update man django-admin.1 to include missing commands

Hello, I added a patch to this ticket: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14391 This is to make django-admin.1 in sync with django-admin.py Laurent Luce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On 5 October 2010 22:10, David Larlet wrote: > > > Jacob Kaplan-Moss a écrit : >> >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Russell Keith-Magee >>  wrote: >>> >>>  * Are there any outstanding tickets on generic views that will be >>> closed by merging this

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

Jacob Kaplan-Moss a écrit : On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: * Are there any outstanding tickets on generic views that will be closed by merging this branch, and do they ask for any features that aren't fixed by this branch? Almost

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Oct 4, 1:04 pm, Andrew Godwin wrote: > On 04/10/10 17:28, legutierr wrote: > > >    * First, treat data processing and retrieval as separable from > > rendering.  Create a bright line of separation between the two > > conceptual elements of the view (data and rendering),

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:43 -0500, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > One point of concern that came up though: looking at the way as_view > introduces a closure, it occurs to me that the docstring of am > as_view'd class view isn't very useful, which'll break introspection > and things like the

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On 2010-10-01, at 3:57 PM, David P. Novakovic wrote: > I may be missing something obvious here, so please tell me if I am.. > but couldn't the resolver just check that quacks like something > OOViewish has been passed in and simply branch and init the class > before calling the view in the same

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Ok - so to kick the process into the next phase, I've just created a > Django branch in my bitbucket repo [1] to cover introducing this to > trunk. I gave this a quick review and nothing huge jumped out. Looks

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Luke Plant wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 13:08 -0400, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> >>> Last idea, I swear, >> >> I didn't swear, so here is another slight