Re: GSoC query

I've been working on aggregation lately, and have opened up a PR https://github.com/django/django/pull/2184 I think the implementation is promising, but it hasn't been vetted by a core contributor yet. I've also begun work on https://github.com/jarshwah/django/commits/nonaggregate-annotations,

Re: GSoC query

Apart from the issues and tickets mentioned in the idea pages and some other tickets/issues which I have found is there anything that anyone would suggest for working on the aggregation/annotation part, like if there is any issue which hasn't been picked up in tickets or anything else,if

Re: [GSOC] Improving the Test-Suite

Hi Akshay, On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Akshay Jaggi wrote: > Hello! > I was planning to work on improving the Test-Suite for GSOC 2014. > I would need some help in formalising and improving my proposal, so that > it meets the requirements. > Great to hear! Here's

Re: #19182 backport request

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:49:26 PM UTC+1, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I'm afraid that the documented feature is totally broken. > I have to disagree, the feature works as advertised as long as you don't use the combination of a custom filter and span relations. Regards, Florian -- You

Re: #19182 backport request

Hi Tim, On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Tim Graham wrote: I sympathize with your frustration. On the other hand as we have over 500 bugs in Trac, and I'm not sure starting to accept documentation requests for them is the best use of our resources. I'm not sure the feature is really completely broken

Re: The unsettings project

On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:53:11 AM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner wrote: > > Hi, > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:18:08 PM UTC+1, Schuyler Duveen wrote: >> >> This work started at the Chicago DjangoCon sprint this past September. >> Justin Holmes and I were talking to Adrian (and then roped

Re: #19182 backport request

I sympathize with your frustration. On the other hand as we have over 500 bugs in Trac, and I'm not sure starting to accept documentation requests for them is the best use of our resources. I'm not sure the feature is really completely broken enough to warrant removing it from the docs? On

Re: The unsettings project

Hi, On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:18:08 PM UTC+1, Schuyler Duveen wrote: > > This work started at the Chicago DjangoCon sprint this past September. > Justin Holmes and I were talking to Adrian (and then roped in Jacob). > After discussing the problem and working out a possible way to move >

Re: #19182 backport request

Hi all, On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Florian Apolloner wrote: as Tim noted on the ticket, we are not going to backport this as per our policy. In that case will you accept patches to remove description of the broken feature from the documentation for 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6? Cheers, Chris. -- Aptivate |

Re: #19182 backport request

Hi, as Tim noted on the ticket, we are not going to backport this as per our policy. Cheers, Florian On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:53:21 PM UTC+1, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Hi all, > > I just ran into bug #19182 : > > ModelAdmin filtering didn't

[GSOC] Improving the Test-Suite

Hello! I was planning to work on improving the Test-Suite for GSOC 2014. I would need some help in formalising and improving my proposal, so that it meets the requirements. One of the improvements I see is classification of test cases. Classifying them into categories (read

Re: The unsettings project

Hi folks, Let me make a stab at the 1000ft view for this. TLDR: Django modules should work as libraries (e.g. ORM, mail, etc). "from django.conf import settings" bootstrap undermines this. unsetting begins a path to support the legacy structure, but still allows for the 'librarification' of

#19182 backport request

Hi all, I just ran into bug #19182 : ModelAdmin filtering didn't work when list_filter includes a ('fieldname', ClassName) tuple, but throws a SuspiciousOperation exception instead. The ChangeList would display fine, but as soon as you tried to use