Re: Odd behavior on proxy models should be on documentation

as their parent class. Everything else follows naturally. Best, Alex Ogier On Aug 18, 2013 12:32 AM, "Jorge C. Leitão" <jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there. > > I was working with proxies models and I found an odd behavior on a > QuerySet, and I ask here whether it should

Re: Security Advisory: BREACH and Django

That's too hard to enforce. It would mean that you can't show user content on any public page, or any page that you want to be accessible from outside links. For example, you couldn't show blog comments to unregistered users. It would be too disruptive. Modifying the format of the secret token is

Re: Supported Python versions for Django 1.7

Debian Wheezy and Ubuntu 12.04 LTS are both on Python 3.2. On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 5:44 PM, VernonCole wrote: > > Dropping support of 3.2 would potentially aid projects which have not yet > converted to Python 3, since Python 3.3 supports u"Unicode Literals" but > 3.2

Re: first() and last(), earliest() and latest()

:05 AM, Lee Trout <leetr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> That's what I thought- But why not just qs[0]? >> >> Doesn't qs[:1] and qs[0] both cause a LIMIT 1 on the query? It seems that >> the [:1] is unnecessary. I would expect both to raise IndexError. >> >> >>

Re: first() and last(), earliest() and latest()

Significantly better. The latter method loads every single model in the queryset into Python, potentially the whole database! On May 15, 2013 9:24 PM, "Lee Trout" wrote: > Is qs[:1][0] better form than list(qs)[0]? > > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Selwin Ong

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Shai Berger <s...@platonix.com> wrote: > On Tuesday 14 May 2013, Alex Ogier wrote: > > > > It's a totally new behavior that has > > plenty of corner cases such as foreign keys, and especially > OneToOneFields. > > > Another

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

d_a, field_name, getattr(new_a, field_name))" for each one, but that has the problem that field setters may expect to do some massaging of the data on the way in which can cause data corruption. Basically this is a Hard Problem(tm) with no obvious workaround. Best, Alex Ogier -- You receiv

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

ld be equivalent to the previous example: bb = B() bb.save() aa = A(b=bb) aa.save() assert aa.b is bb assert bb.a is aa # back-reference is cached aaa = A.objects.get(id=aa.id) aaa.b = None aaa.save() aa.refresh() # back-reference is cleared assert aa.b is None assert bb.a is None Hopefully that cl

Re: reconsider re-opening ticket 901

sh() would the existing instance in place. It's more akin to foo.__dict__ = MyObj.objects.get(id= foo.id).__dict__ Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin

Re: Nested blocks in base template.

It looks like the only place I can find where {{ block.super }} is documented[1] doesn't include explicitly explain how the super block is executed, but it is certainly the reasonable thing to do: execute the super block in the current template's context as if it hadn't been overridden. Otherwise

Re: Changing deferred model attribute behavior

actively". Groups let you solve both problems flexibly. The downside is that they might not be very DRY, having to repeat group="everything" over and over if you just want to load it all on first access. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: [GSoC 2013] Improving code quality

troduce the possibility of new bugs or flaws. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Damian Skrodzki <damien...@gmail.com>wrote: > And how would you rate the chances that these projects will be selected > for GSoC? Or which of all proposed projects have the most priority

Re: Request method in urls.py

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The problem I have with fallthrough-based dispatch is that it encourages > really expensive performance-killing patte

Re: Request method in urls.py

, at least if and until core supports fallthrough URLs. Best, Alex Ogier On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Tom Christie <christie@gmail.com>wrote: > This proposal is actually *very* similar to the 'URL > dispatcher fall-though' > thread<https://groups.google.com/d/msg

Re: Request method in urls.py

I agree, I think there are use cases for both types of dispatch, and it seems clean and well-defined to make a route that is valid for only a subset of HTTP methods. I guess there are a few corner cases to think about, for example should Django's url resolver start returning 405s instead of 404s

Re: django.utils.simplejson + stdlib json

on't think it's worth re-adding. Best, Alex Ogier On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > On 13 avr. 2013, at 22:13, Jeremy Dunck <jdu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > After reading that ticket, I'm not sure what Ale

Re: django.utils.simplejson + stdlib json

I think what he is saying is that many third-party libraries call the equivalent of django.utils.simplejson.dumps("...", cls=DjangoJSONEncoder) which, despite django.utils.simplejson only being in a pending deprecation state, is broken. On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Alex Gaynor

Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

ng in core that is blocking the external implementation of a feature like this, it's worth looking at, else just implement it outside of core. Particularly in this instance since it will still be impossible to embed Django applications anyways. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message beca

Re: URLField should allow scheme to be empty

. If you want to have a field that allows relative or scheme-relative URLs, creating your own field is the way to go. Best, Alex Ogier [1]: https://github.com/search?q=language%3Apython+URLField=commandbar=Code [2]: https://github.com/django/django/blob/master/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py#L1323

Re: URLField should allow scheme to be empty

Don't add an option, it's not needed. URLs with blank schemas are valid, it's just a bug that Django adds 'http://' in that case. So make a ticket, +1 from me. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Juan Pablo Martínez <jpm...@gmail.com>wrote: > I love it. > If URLField h

Re: Changes to django's settings module

us "Install django-configurations, and now you have a new tool in your toolbox to put in settings.py that imports from the environment!" Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Omer Katz <omer.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > You haven't referred to the pull request. > T

Re: Changes to django's settings module

we could write up some good practices for managing settings in multiple contexts -- that would be more welcome than code in Django core, I think. Midterms end today for me, so maybe I will try writing up some of the practices that make managing settings easier for me later tonight. Best, Alex Ogier

Re: Changes to django's settings module

f you want to modularize them, you are free to do so yourself. I think composing settings internally is just added complexity for little benefit. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Omer Katz <omer.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lately I implemented some changes for django's se

Re: Moving database backends out of the core

no reason to split off backends unless the maintenance burden is such that they are chronically broken in every Django release. And every reason to add MSSQL unless the maintenance burden is too high. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Erik Romijn <e...@erik.io> wrote: > H

Re: Moving database backends out of the core

://pytools.codeplex.com/ [2]: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/python/tutorials/django-with-visual-studio/ [3]: http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/python/tutorials/web-app-with-django-and-mysql/ Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org>

Re: Proposal: deprecate and remove django.contrib.comments

de of core, then it will die, but we should make it a trivial matter to fork and adopt for whoever needs it. Anyways, +1 from me. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Luke Granger-Brown <luk...@lukegb.com>wrote: > +1 from me too - I've only tried using django.contrib.comments o

Re: Transforming django-admin.py to a shell script

the web to fix. Besides, it does have some merit as it is consistent with `./manage.py somecommand`, which is the recommended way to run pretty much every command except "startproject". Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &qu

Re: Moving from PIL to Pillow

t install it instead of or in addition to PIL when testing, and update any documentation that refers to PIL and ImageFields to recommend Pillow instead. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: TIMEZONE default

is a better way of handling times. As a result, if the settings module doesn't contain a TIME_ZONE setting, then you get 'America/Chicago' in order to be backwards compatible, but when you make a new project you get the current best-practice setting which is UTC. Best, Alex Ogier On Sat, Feb 9

Re: Form.set_data method

ted things if they override it). So I'm -0 due to the additional complexity for something which is already possible and has a widely used idiom, even if it is more verbose. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Byron Ruth <bjr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't want to bel

Re: Form.set_data method

new method will bypass their customizations. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Byron Ruth <bjr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't understand your argument regarding overriding `__init__`. Nothing > has changed in __init__, the logic for setting `data` and `files` is si

Re: Shouldn't Textarea be CamelCased as TextArea?

no "Input" suffix. So the naming is consistent, and agrees with the HTML tags, even though it looks a little weird without that knowledge. Best, Alex Ogier On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Wim Feijen <w...@go2people.nl> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I was just wondering, a

Re: First request - Modify django.core.management.color with settings option

Well, most GNU command line utilities have an option --color=always|auto|never that defaults to auto. Seems like it works for them, so replicating it for management commands makes more sense than an environment variable to me. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Alex Gaynor

Re: Yet another __ne not equal discussion

To be fair, the query you describe is significantly more expensive than Marek's query. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Marek Brzóska > wrote: > > > > > > > > 2012/11/30 Tom Evans

Re: Class based views: A standard hook for http-method-independent code

For example, you miss Http404 and other error responses, which are implemented as exceptional control flow. In addition, you can't do any preprocessing of the request; for example, you can't set up any invariants before your actual view method is called. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Nov 14, 2012

Re: Perimission field name on the new Custom User Model

Oh, my apologies, the proper argument to set the name of the table that is created for a ManyToManyField is db_table instead of db_column (which just controls the column on the user table itself). Entirely my mistake. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Christian Jensen <chr

Re: Custom user models in 1.5, not flexible/dry enough?

mixin-crazy, it's to find the best way to expose permissions-checking (the most boilerplate-heavy of the requirements of an admin-compatible user). The other contracts are probably better exposed as tests in contrib.admin than as little piece-wise mixins. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Nov 8, 2012

Re: Custom user models in 1.5, not flexible/dry enough?

will still have to be overridden, but that was always inevitable. On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi>wrote: > On 6 marras, 23:05, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... Since you can't actually override or change the field

Re: Custom user models in 1.5, not flexible/dry enough?

I might try that on my branch, and see how it works out. My guess is it will work just fine albeit with an absurdly deep inheritance tree. Best, Alex Ogier On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Ryan Kaskel <d...@ryankaskel.com> wrote: > I implemented a custom User model in my new project so I ca

Re: Proposal - ``Model.reset_state``

adding it to core. Hopefully it addresses your use case though. Here's an example of a similar snippet someone has written, though obviously you want to keep the same PK instead of auto-generating a new one: http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/904/ Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this mess

Re: URL dispatcher slow?

ork speed," but "Fix it yourself" is a hackneyed open-source truism, and "Speed doesn't matter" is more or less self-evidently false -- especially to someone evaluating frameworks, who may not yet have a strong opinion on what features are game-changers for his application. Best, Alex

Re: Feature request: collectstatic shouldn't recopy files that already exist in destination

n case of reading from local disk and writing to S3, this is a big win, and doesn't require cooperation from any other backends, or standardizing on md5 as a fingerprint method. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django develo

Re: A bit of Django history

ruth: Django’s admin will blow your mind There are a lot of other good python frameworks nowadays with lots of nice features, but this is the one that keeps me coming back to Django. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: Model inheritance extended.

ges to INSTALLED_APPS, which means the only benefit to being in core is canonicalizing the pattern. Best, Alex Ogier -- 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@google

Re: iPython behaves strangely only with Django shell

e of my first field > declaration. > > IPython 0.12.1 > Python 2.7.2 (v2.7.2:8527427914a2, Jun 11 2011, 15:22:34) > This is almost certainly related to https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/18204 I can repro just as Alex Gaynor did, and the patch from the above ticket fixes it.

Re: Yak shaving the test framework on the way to pluggable user models (#3011)

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > I suppose you could see it as a semantic nuance. However, to my mind, > there is a different. A skipped test is something that could -- or > even *should* be run -- but can't due to missing some optional >

Re: Python 3 str.format()

> Until the Python developers announce an actual timeline for removal > (if they ever do), I can't see any reason for Django to be concerned > about which formatting approach to use, apart from the immediate > concerns of style and efficiency. I don't think Python will ever remove %-style

Re: Streaming HttpResponse revisted. Any core devs, please take a look if you can :)

but recommending as a best practice to create new HttpResponses would *really* break this. Best, Alex Ogier -- 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@googlegroups.c

Re: GSoC Check-in: Security Enhancements

ossible, and should be able to explicitly opt out if necessary. Almost everyone should be using every single protection Django offers on all their requests, and therefore it should be verbose and discouraged to turn off these protections. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message beca

Re: XSS and string interpolation

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Luke Plant <l.plant...@cantab.net> wrote: > > Some other alternatives: build_html, build_html_safe, format_html > +1 for format_html. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Djan

Re: XSS and string interpolation

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, to be compatible with python 3 and more idiomatic python, I > would implement the function as: > >    def html_mark_safe(format_string, *args): >        return mark_safe(f

Re: XSS and string interpolation

o be compatible with python 3 and more idiomatic python, I would implement the function as: def html_mark_safe(format_string, *args): return mark_safe(format_string.format(*map(conditional_escape, args))) Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

don't return anything else when they are unchecked. Kind of throws a wrench in my plan. Best, Alex Ogier -- 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@googlegroups.com. T

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

input fields in your HTML. Since all our forms are explicit, it is feasible to catch that scenario and throw an error, which I think we should do. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group,

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

or further examples see " It's an easy thing to justify turning on in an opt-out fashion, Meta.allow_partial_submissions or something. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

option 1. Making a ModelForm is already a choice to expose a model directly. -1 on option 2. Default is still insecure, and Meta.exclude has use cases. +0 on option 3. It's like my option 4, but requires [for field in Model._meta.fields] hackery to work around. +1 on option 4. Auto-generated fie

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> No one can sneak extra unexpected fields past a developer by editing HTML >> client side, because if the f

Re: ModelForms and the Rails input handling vulnerability

don't have the Rails problem where one dev makes a scaffold form for an insecure model and another one adds a secure field to the model opening up a security hole, because it's easy to notice when a password field or top secret checkbox appears on a random form. No one can sneak extra unexpected fie

Re: json vs simplejson

mend that people switch to simplejson instead, or undeprecate django.utils.simplejson as a necessary wart (we can still stop vendoring simplejson though). Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group.

Re: json vs simplejson

ithout simplejson. If Django depends on optimized behavior, then it is a bug, and a ticket should be filed. Best, Alex Ogier -- 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@googlegroups.c

Re: json vs simplejson

django.utils import simplejson >>> simplejson.loads('{"a":"b"}') {u'a': u'b'} >>> json.loads == simplejson.loads True Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To po

Re: json vs simplejson

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Luke Plant wrote: > > i.e. simplejson returns bytestrings if the string is ASCII (it returns > unicode objects otherwise), while json returns unicode objects always. > This seemed strange to me because the standard library json shipping

Re: Proposed Field API additions

e error can be thrown: "Model Foo has an unknown field: `field_name` of type: `project.app.CustomField`. Please register this field with `django.db.migrations.register_field()` before creating migrations on the Foo model." Also, you can support third-party fields by registering them in your

Re: Django's CVB - Roadmap?

) on some form, you rely on the internals executing something for you, which makes understanding preconditions for various methods difficult to understand without extensive docs. Anyways, this is a deeper problem than "There are two things we can fix, let's get on that." Best, Alex Og

Re: Django git guidelines

mend --author "John Doe <j...@example.com>" > Git actually has native support for this workflow. Each commit has an "author" and a "committer" which are typically the same, but in the case of a squash merge or patch are different. For example, http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/

Re: Django git guidelines

up commit messages for posterity. Best, Alex Ogier On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > > On May 18, 6:08 pm, Donald Stufft <donald.stu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I

Re: Application init inconsistent

, but it explains the behavior you are seeing if you are importing a different name when you do the native import. Best, Alex Ogier On May 7, 2012 4:34 PM, "Scott Sadler" <ssad...@mashi.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm making some extensions to the Django AdminSite for dashboard I'm

A quick primer on how to move feature branches to the new Git repository

I have posted instructions on how to easily and safely rebase feature branches from an old fork of Django's SVN mirror onto Django's official git repository. I hope this helps. Let me know if you need help or the instructions are unclear or incorrect. https://gist.github.com/2549844 Best, Alex

Re: GitHub migration planning

ve the same social benefits, and all the same drawbacks, so I don't think anyone would seriously advocate moving there. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django

Re: GitHub migration planning

jects that use git that use patch-based workflows rather than merging. The advantage of that is a linear history with each feature packaged into a neat commit. The extra detail is great for developing, but not so great for a mainline history (it breaks 'git bisect' for example). Best, Alex Ogier -- You recei

Re: GitHub migration planning

; Maybe the best way to avoid that people create issues on github is to > disable it for the > official repository. This is possible through the Github's Admin interface. > Err, I think the point was that Trac is less accessible than Github so Django *should* be using Github I

Re: extra files in startproject

e) named "django". So, this "import django" will import relative to current directory and will work. > And in fact, this behavior is relied upon. Django's setup.py imports the relative django to get the version number. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because y

Re: extra files in startproject

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> writes: > > > That seems like too much to ask. "setup.py install" should Just > > Work(tm), > > In the absence of a proper package

Re: extra files in startproject

r example 'distutils.dir_util.remove_tree'. Adding that for our specific directory that needs to be clean should work, yes? Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django

Re: extra files in startproject

It's a bit hacky but it would work. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > On 12 avr. 2012, at 21:16, Carl Meyer wrote: > > > The open question is just how this situation occurs in the first place. >

Re: #18094: signals, model inheritance, and proxy models

load time to avoid performance hits from isinstance calls. Best, Alex Ogier On Apr 12, 2012 2:59 PM, "Carl Meyer" <c...@oddbird.net> wrote: > On 04/12/2012 12:43 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > > It is important that pre/post init signals will not get more expensive &g

Re: extra files in startproject (was: Django is not a serious framework, really)

Maybe it would be worth experimenting with various combinations of django 1.x django-admin.py executables with django 1.4 libraries? Maybe if django-admin.py is a symlink into a 1.3 tree but django 1.4 is on the search path this stuff could crop up? Best, Alex Ogier On Apr 12, 2012 2:32 PM, "

Re: Admin site: Appropriateness of HTTP 500 when using non-allowed query strings

eption. It's not a code path you should ever reach in normal use, only when someone is getting crafty with the admin URLs. A 400 response suggests that there is a fixable error somewhere, and there isn't. Best, Alex Ogier On Apr 11, 2012 2:44 PM, "3point2" <vasili.reve...@gmail.com>

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

Tai, I think you are overestimating the importance of a "pluggable" user model. If 100 apps all try to add fields to the User model then of course bloat and performance issues and field name conflicts will be a problem. But I don't think that will happen. There are very good reasons for an app

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

. There are a bunch of standard ways to relate to a model that don't invasively change it. They are all still available, and in fact preferred because no matter how easy it is to use a mixin, doing nothing is even easier. Best, Alex Ogier On Apr 10, 2012 10:58 AM, "Tom Evans" <tevans...@googlema

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

own proxy attributes to app fields, after all you control the entire user class. Best, Alex Ogier On Apr 10, 2012 5:47 AM, "Tom Evans" <tevans...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tai, read

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

Tai, read https://gist.github.com/2289395 for a summary of many reasons why I think profiles are a bad idea, and unifying multiple profiles is an even worse idea. Best, Alex Ogier On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Tai Lee <real.hu...@mrmachine.net> wrote: > Alex Ogier, > > Is i

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

t in terms of contrib.auth.models.User. If you're already using that with a profile and it's all working fine, then this change isn't for you. This is for everyone who just wishes auth.User would go away without totally borking admin. Respectfully, Alex Ogier On Apr 6, 2012 1:21 AM, "Donald Stufft" <donald.

Re: Ticket for Docs improvement Was: Proposal: upgrading the choices machinery for Django

a NameError. > > -- > Łukasz Rekucki As attributes of the class object I'm pretty sure they are in scope. No NameErrors there. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group,

Re: Proposal: upgrading the choices machinery for Django

doesn't restrict you from altering display values for internationalization. It seems to me like this is really a documentation problem, where distilling the wisdom of developers like Adrian into a little best practices paragraph in the choices argument reference would go very far in making the awkward

Re: [GSoC 2012] auth.User replacement proposal

Fair enough. My goal was never to shut down collaboration, and if GSoC will do that then I am happy to drop it. The money was never my motivation, and I will definitely still contribute what I can. Best, Alex Ogier On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org>

[GSoC 2012] auth.User replacement proposal

on, and they give the project enough direction that it will rapidly become obvious if and when I am derailing your conception of what needs to be done, so I hope you will consider letting it be done as a GSoC project. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

proposal. You can find it at https://gist.github.com/2289395 Best, Alex Ogier On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org>wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I've written up a proposal for how *I* would like to address refactoring > auth.user: https://gist.

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

n #2?" Then as soon as everyone does that and facebook, twitter, browserid, and plain emails all share the same namespace, we open up the same whole can of worms that we get with cache keys, except now failures to manage things properly manifest themselves as security holes in basic authen

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

like, add in whatever authorization mechanisms you need (with specific instructions on what contrib.admin demands from your model), and run with that. Sorry for the rant, hopefully I'm not burning too many bridges, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo

Re: Dropping django.utils.simplejson

rth worrying about. Best, Alex Ogier On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Łukasz Rekucki <lreku...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 March 2012 13:04, Alex Ogier <alex.og...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At the same time, I want to reiterate my support for option #1: not > deprecating the >

Re: Dropping django.utils.simplejson

Best, Alex Ogier On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > I am for number 2 too, but don't forget that's deprecation in 1.5 and 1.6 > and removal in 1.7 > > Cheers, > Florian > > -- > You received this messag

Re: Dropping django.utils.simplejson

know how common that is, most alternate json modules appear pretty inactive but you never know. Also, whether or not that is common, it turns out there has been a bug that looks like it was added last October that means that no one has been using the system json module at all. Best, Alex Ogier

Re: Dropping django.utils.simplejson

ith C extensions) whenever available. Therefore I am in favor of option #1, unless the shim is so trivial as to warrant asking any developers who use it to rewrite it themselves. Best, Alex Ogier On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > &g

Re: Django should not use `force_unicode(..., errors='replace')` when parsing POST data.

t want to do that. The question is why force_encoding(..., errors='replace') is giving you a string that PostgreSQL can't handle. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to djang

Re: Making the EmailField RFC-compliant: proposals here!

usual timeframe on controversial decisions like this, so if it is unlikely that a BDFL will put their foot down significantly before the deadline then that is also good to know. I could then apply with a looser definition of the project contingent on an eventual decision. Ciao, Alex Ogier

Re: suggestion: Don't make the tag "url" dirty in Django1.5

url is not widespread > Well yes, it's not widespread: It's currently impossible. And it's only three lines if you want to explicitly create a context variable inside a template (which you will note is done with a quoted string constant). What your example demonstrates is how to create a constant v

Re: Making the EmailField RFC-compliant: proposals here!

t for the email field is important, arguably a 1.5 release blocker, but so long as there is a good chance that migration support will be 1.5's poster-child feature then I think email support should be our poster child's poster child. Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscr

Re: make the source code of the django tutorial available ?

a reference, the tutorial itself is an excellent textual description of all the changes made, so why not just refer to that? Best, Alex Ogier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email

Re: gsoc proposal, dynamic list form field

match your conception. -Alex Ogier -- 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@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developer

  1   2   >