Re: GSoC query

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:35:05 AM UTC+5:30, Florian Apolloner wrote: > > On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:01:09 PM UTC+1, anubhav joshi wrote: >> >> Well I will see what I put in my proposal..it will be based on >> aggregation/annotation as well as improving the error message part as

Re: GSoC query

I am not trying to say that I can solve all the issues myself, that is no way possible. But I had wanted to base my work on aggregation part but I think quite has been done so I just said that I would now explore other areas as well. I have no intention of telling that I could do all, I merely

Re: Ticket #9?

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 3:13:28 AM UTC+1, Justin Holmes wrote: > > I didn't mean to suggest that it was nefarious. It's just that that > ticket had some... sentimental value. ;-) > I am pretty sure it's implemented by now:

Re: Ticket #9?

I didn't mean to suggest that it was nefarious. It's just that that ticket had some... sentimental value. ;-) On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Russell Keith-Magee < russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > > There isn't anything nefarious going on here; we delete tickets > occasionally. It's usually

Re: [GSOC] Improving the Test-Suite

Just a few observations that I've had when running the test suite that may be relevant. - There are lots and lots of different test modules that may be relevant to a particular change, and some may not seem relevant until you run the entire suite - bug* modules are hard to classify without

Re: [GSoC] Switching to Jinja2 proposal

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Medrela > wrote: > > My last post was pretty long and the most important questions and > statements > have left unanswered, so I will repeat them. > >

Re: [GSoC] Switching to Jinja2 proposal

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Christopher Medrela < chris.medr...@gmail.com> wrote: > My last post was pretty long and the most important questions and > statements > have left unanswered, so I will repeat them. > > What I'm proposing now is more conservative proposal. Firstly, Django will >

Re: Ticket #9?

There isn't anything nefarious going on here; we delete tickets occasionally. It's usually due to spam. There's a lot of deleted tickets in the 20k range. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Justin Holmes wrote: > It appears that Ticket #9 has been

Ticket #9?

It appears that Ticket #9 has been deleted? Anybody know why? https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9 -- Justin Holmes Chief Chocobo Breeder, slashRoot slashRoot: Coffee House and Tech Dojo New Paltz, NY 12561 845.633.8330 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: GSoC query

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:01:09 PM UTC+1, anubhav joshi wrote: > > Well I will see what I put in my proposal..it will be based on > aggregation/annotation as well as improving the error message part as > before...I might now look to other things as well like improving tests as >

Re: [GSoC] Switching to Jinja2 proposal

On 15 Feb 2014 18:13, "Donald Stufft" wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > >> My last post was pretty long and the most important questions and statements >> have left unanswered, so I will repeat them. >> >> What I'm

Re: [GSoC] Switching to Jinja2 proposal

On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Christopher Medrela wrote: > My last post was pretty long and the most important questions and statements > have left unanswered, so I will repeat them. > > What I'm proposing now is more conservative proposal. Firstly, Django will >

Re: [GSoC] Switching to Jinja2 proposal

My last post was pretty long and the most important questions and statements have left unanswered, so I will repeat them. What I'm proposing now is more conservative proposal. Firstly, Django will support Jinja2 out-of-the-box, but DTL will remain the "blessed" option. Secondly, Django will allow

Re: GSoC query

Well I will see what I put in my proposal..it will be based on aggregation/annotation as well as improving the error message part as before...I might now look to other things as well like improving tests as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [GSOC] Improving the Test-Suite

Hi all, On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: One of the improvements I see is classification of test cases. Classifying them into categories (read multiple-categories), would make it easier for users/developers/maintainers to run them. Basis of classification,etc is what I am