Simon,
> A couple of months ago Jannis closed #/17924 [1] as wontfix, stating "I'm
> violently -1 on the whole topic "meta programming form fields after they've
> been instantiated", it's a mess. Yes it would be more DRY, but also much
> harder to know how the hell the form fields are composed
Hi,
Thanks for the report -- if you want to make sure this isn't
forgotten, you should open a ticket and describe the fix you think
needs to be made. Reporting to the mailing list is helpful, but is
just as likely to get lost in someone's inbox.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:45
It sounds like the preferred solution is still "don't do that", which I
think corresponds most closely with option 1. Simply consuming generator
content in `HttpResponse.__init__()` in all cases would prevent some of the
surprising behaviour we are seeing, but it would completely break any
supp
At:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#django.db.models.FileField.upload_to
The docs make mention of the "url" attribute being MEDIA_ROOT + upload_to. I
think whoever wrote it meant that the aforementioned is how the file name/path
is determined, and that also MEDIA_URL +
Hi Tai,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 08:39:07AM -0700, Tai Lee wrote:
> I'd like to re-visit the discussion surrounding #7581 [1], a ticket about
> streaming responses that is getting quite long in the tooth now, which Jacob
> finally "accepted" 11 months ago (after a long time as DDN) and said that it
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Victor Hooi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm just wondering, has there been any updates on the User model refactor?
>>
>> My understanding is that this is the official way of handling Users going
>> forward.
>>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> My inclination is that we should kill .content entirely, middleware that
> wants to rewrite the response will have two choices:
>
> 1) explicitly evaluate the entire response, and return a new HttpResponse
> object
> 2) return s anew HttpRespo
On 20 elo, 22:21, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> My inclination is that we should kill .content entirely, middleware that
> wants to rewrite the response will have two choices:
>
> 1) explicitly evaluate the entire response, and return a new HttpResponse
> object
> 2) return s anew HttpResponse object that
Ok
Thaks for you reply.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> Please ask questions about using Django on django-users. The topic of this
> list is the development of Django itself.
>
> Thanks,
> Karen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Please ask questions about using Django on django-users. The topic of this
list is the development of Django itself.
Thanks,
Karen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googl
Hello
I'm new in Django using 1.4version.
So got some error.
'myapp.models.AdversiteImages'> has no ForeignKey to
*
MODEL*
class AdversiteImages(models.Model):
image = models.FileField(u'Photo' , upload_to='adversiteimage/%Y/%
m/%d', null=True, blank=True)
class Adversite(models.Model):
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
>
>
> On 20 elo, 18:39, Tai Lee wrote:
> > I'd like to re-visit the discussion surrounding #7581 [1], a ticket about
> > streaming responses that is getting quite long in the tooth now, which
> > Jacob finally "accepted" 11 months ago (aft
On 20 elo, 18:39, Tai Lee wrote:
> I'd like to re-visit the discussion surrounding #7581 [1], a ticket about
> streaming responses that is getting quite long in the tooth now, which
> Jacob finally "accepted" 11 months ago (after a long time as DDN) and said
> that it is clear we have to do *som
I'd like to re-visit the discussion surrounding #7581 [1], a ticket about
streaming responses that is getting quite long in the tooth now, which
Jacob finally "accepted" 11 months ago (after a long time as DDN) and said
that it is clear we have to do *something*, but *what* remains to be seen.
Hi,
Today is the 'pencils down' date for this GSoC project. Past 4 months
have been a great learning experience from me. Just being in the
context of security side of the web has been really beneficial. Moving
around in a very well written code base is also delightful.
Meanwhile, I did get to work
On 20 elo, 13:27, Anders Steinlein wrote:
> Any chance of having this patch backported to 1.4? Or is this a 1.5-only
> thing?
New features do not get backpatched.
However, the changes to actual code are around 5 lines. The rest is
documentation changes. It should be fairly trivial to backpatch t
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> On 13 elo, 21:25, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> > On 10 elo, 20:12, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> >
> > I can take care of the patch. As said earlier I don't understand GIS
> > well, but based on the discussions I have no doubt about the patch.
> >
On 13 elo, 21:25, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On 10 elo, 20:12, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> > That sounds good to me, though I'm not a committer on the tree as far
> > as I know. Anssi?
>
> I can take care of the patch. As said earlier I don't understand GIS
> well, but based on the discussions I hav
18 matches
Mail list logo
