Hi,
>Django still needs it because not all deployment of Django >will be over
>WSGI.
Although that could easily be solved by dumping the current mod_python
handler in favor of a mod_python WSGI handler and only using the WSGI
stuff. That way we could make much better use off WSGI middleware and
hugo wrote:
>>Django still needs it because not all deployment of Django >will be over
>>WSGI.
>
>
> Although that could easily be solved by dumping the current mod_python
> handler in favor of a mod_python WSGI handler and only using the WSGI
> stuff. That way we could make much better use off
On 8 Nov 2005, at 08:47, Ian Bicking wrote:
However, I don't think you'd lose anything by routing everything
through
WSGI.
IIRC, the reason Django doesn't use WSGI in the first place is that
when we first created it two years ago WSGI was still being fleshed
out on the Python Web SIG m
On 11/8/05, hugo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although that could easily be solved by dumping the current mod_python
> handler in favor of a mod_python WSGI handler and only using the WSGI
> stuff. That way we could make much better use off WSGI middleware and
> other things Ian is working on.
My
So I went to the London Django/Rails meetup yesterday. In general a good
time was had - met Simon Willison, and some ThoughtWorks guys doing a
GreenPeace site with Django.
The general feeling from those using or considering Django (including
some rubyists) seemed to be "Release a 0.7 tarball, for
On 11/8/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The general feeling from those using or considering Django (including
> some rubyists) seemed to be "Release a 0.7 tarball, for the love of all
> that is holy!"
>
> It seems that quite some people just aren't comfortable with checking
> thing
On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
On 11/8/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The general feeling from those using or considering Django (including
some rubyists) seemed to be "Release a 0.7 tarball, for the love
of all
that is holy!"
It seems that quite some peo
Simon Willison wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005, at 08:47, Ian Bicking wrote:
However, I don't think you'd lose anything by routing everything through
WSGI.
IIRC, the reason Django doesn't use WSGI in the first place is that
when we first created it two years ago WSGI was still being fleshed out
o
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 08:35, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> I think we need to bite our lips, suck it up, and release a 1.0
> version.
+1
A "stable" release would make those who are trusting my judgement in
choosing Django for a medium-large-ish project a little less nervous
(me, too).
On 11/8/05, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it sounds OK, I'd like to start a 1.0 release branch and only
> apply any outstanding bug fixes to it; moving feature requests/
> patches to a 1.1 target. That way we can get a stable 1.0 out the
> door and focus on 1.1 for feature imp
On 11/8/05, Eric Walstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 08 November 2005 08:35, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> > I think we need to bite our lips, suck it up, and release a 1.0
> > version.
>
> +1
>
> A "stable" release would make those who are trusting my judgement in
> choosing Django for
I got to say that I really think what adrian says is the right thing to
do. Get the docs done, and merge the new-admin got to be top priority
in my opinion.
On Nov 8, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
Here's what we should finish before this first 1.0 version:
* Transactions.
Agreed.
* New-admin branch.
What's the state of this branch? Last time I tried it out -- a few
weeks ago, IIRC -- there seemed to be a bunch more work to be d
On 11/8/05, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the state of this branch? Last time I tried it out -- a few
> weeks ago, IIRC -- there seemed to be a bunch more work to be done.
> I'd obviously LOVE to see this get rolled in, but if it's a "few
> months" thing I don't think it w
2005/11/8, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> * RSS
> * Comments framework
> * Authentication (already started; I need to finish)
> * Admin-site documentation (already started on my laptop; I need to finish)
> * Views (already started on my laptop; I need to finish)
> * Finish tutorial
> * H
On Nov 8, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
I'd like to see a solution to "core=True" before 1.0 -- i.e., not
having to use that anymore. This goes beyond what new-admin offers,
and it would probably be a backwards-incompatible change (hence the
1.0 requirement).
That's a good point --
# Why don`t we include Django-Ajax in 1.0? I agree that releasing it
# sooner is good for the project but a nice ajax interface is the
# future for all web applications. Don`t you agree this is an
# imprescindible update?
I think that really goes into the "bells and whistles" category.
Admittedly
On 11/8/05, Pedro Furtado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don`t you agree this is an imprescindible
> update?
I dunno what imprescindible means. :)
On 11/8/05, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Screencasts so fucking exciting you'll cry.
I'll stock up on gatorade.
Inline.
"Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/8/05, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Transactions.
There are problems with transactions in caching --- sometimes database is
locked up for no reason without any errors. I didn't hav
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
So, any objections to starting a 1.0 bug-fix-only release branch?
No objection but a concern...
Some time ago I filed a ticket
(http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/570/) about FormWrapper not
working for ForeignKey fields. It's rather basic functionality and I
co
personally I'd like to see the user-registration app get
documented/released as well.
what is the state of this?
On 11/9/05, Eugene Lazutkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Inline.
>
> "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 11/8/05, Jacob Kaplan-Mos
On Nov 8, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
personally I'd like to see the user-registration app get
documented/released as well.
what is the state of this?
The registration app (as opposed to just the user module) is
currently part of our proprietary software package and I'm not sure
i
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/05, Robert Wittams
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The general feeling from those using or considering Django (including
>>> some rubyists) seemed to be "Release a 0.7 tarball, for the love of all
24 matches
Mail list logo
