Definitely seems like a good idea to me. Even as a frequent CBV user, it
always takes me a few seconds to remember to import from generic.
John Paulett
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Tim Graham <timogra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Class-based view users, does this proposal fro
Carl, your proposal sounds good to me. I would be happy to contribute to a
DEP, if formalization of the process is necessary.
Christian, let's coordinate to set up a public/private repo pair with the
appropriate warnings and have one of us apply for the pre-release
notifications (if you haven't
James, thanks for putting this together.
Christian, I am in a similar position, supporting 2.6 for the next 6-12
months. I had planned to keep a personal fork of Django 1.6, backporting
security patches as needed, but I would be happy to contribute to a common
effort in this regard.
As
I'll chime in with a counterpoint.
request.REQUEST can be helpful in limited cases when the server application
simply does not care whether it is receiving data via a GET query string or
x-www-form-urlencoded POST and a different clients can choose which form
method is appropriate for its use
Related tickets are #14952 and #12206. #14952 includes a possible
patch, but marked as wontfix.
However, I'm definitely +1 on adding support for pyc/pyo support for
management commands. I understand the arguments against deploying
bytecode-only, but it seems to work everywhere in Django, except
Sounds similar to what django-sentry already provides:
http://blog.disqus.com/post/1178923988/django-sentry
(we may want to move this discussion to django-users)
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Ric wrote:
> oh fantastic... but i read about security issue...
>
>