Re: #9344 and policy for small bug reports

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Julien Phalip wrote: > > Hi, > > I just wanted to draw your attention to what appears to be a bug in > Django: the 'tell()' proxy is missing from the Windows-specific > implementation of TemporaryFile. This causes Django to crash when >

Re: #9344 and policy for small bug reports

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Julien Phalip wrote: > > Now, I know that this is sort of an edge case, and I also know that > there are more important and more urgent matters at this moment. But > I'd be keen to hear what is the official (or tacit) policy for that > kind of

Re: #9344 and policy for small bug reports

Julien Phalip wrote: > There probably are a few other tickets in > that situation (#9404 is another example). And http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9591 is yet another. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Controlling form/widgets output

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:02 AM, catsclaw wrote: > > On Jan 22, 12:12 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss > wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, catsclaw wrote: >> > Well, it seems to me that makes for an *extremely* tight coupling

Re: Controlling form/widgets output

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Matt Boersma wrote: > That's an excellent question for the django-users list. Here we > discuss the development of django itself. Bit hasty on the trigger there, Matt. I asked Chris for the specific problems he's running into; he's responding

#9344 and policy for small bug reports

Hi, I just wanted to draw your attention to what appears to be a bug in Django: the 'tell()' proxy is missing from the Windows-specific implementation of TemporaryFile. This causes Django to crash when manipulating the uploaded file with PIL, for example. Ticket #9344 contains a patch to fix

Re: Controlling form/widgets output

On Jan 22, 2009, at 9:23 PM, catsclaw wrote: > > On Jan 22, 12:12 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss > wrote: >> Why don't we start over here: what is the problem? What did you try >> do >> do? What did you expect to happen? What actually happened? > >

Re: Controlling form/widgets output

On Jan 22, 12:12 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Why don't we start over here: what is the problem? What did you try do > do? What did you expect to happen? What actually happened? Here's another problem I'm stuck at. I'm trying to determine, within a widget,

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

Hi Malcolm, > I look forward to reading your patch. :-) OK. -- Best regards, Yuri V. Baburov, ICQ# 99934676, Skype: yuri.baburov, MSN: bu...@live.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: Model-validation: call for discussions

On Jan 23, 3:40 am, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 17:27 -0800, mrts wrote: > > [] > > >  A > > side note: the `instance` attribute is not used in validator functions > > and I can't see a clear use case for it, so it looks like it can be > >

Re: Model-validation: call for discussions

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 17:27 -0800, mrts wrote: [] > A > side note: the `instance` attribute is not used in validator functions > and I can't see a clear use case for it, so it looks like it can be > removed -- prove me wrong please (I do see obscure corner cases where > it could be useful --

Re: Model-validation: call for discussions

On Jan 19, 11:23 pm, mrts wrote: > The directory-based approach is best, I'll go with it -- but it's yet > uncertain > when as I have to handle pressing matters at work during daytime. I've implemented some fundamental changes that need review. The commit is at

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 21:51 +0600, Yuri Baburov wrote: > Hi, and what's wrong with writing a fix for admin to make "inverted" > m2m relation to show m2m if specified in list_display list? I know > it's not easy to do for one who is not django creator, but since it's > open source... ;) > > Core

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote: > > On Jan 22, 6:51 pm, Yuri Baburov wrote: >> Hi, and what's wrong with writing a fix for admin to make "inverted" >> m2m relation to show m2m if specified in list_display list? I know >> it's not

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

On Jan 22, 6:51 pm, Yuri Baburov wrote: > Hi, and what's wrong with writing a fix for admin to make "inverted" > m2m relation to show m2m if specified in list_display list? I know > it's not easy to do for one who is not django creator, but since it's > open source... ;) Oh,

pychecker catches IndexError exception while importing /django/db/models/base.py

Hi all, I'm attempting to run pychecker on my django code (an application's models.py file) and get the following output: $ pychecker models.py Processing models... Caught exception importing module models: File "/var/lib/python-support/python2.5/pychecker/checker.py", line 619, in

Re: Controlling form/widgets output

On Jan 22, 12:12 am, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, catsclaw wrote: > >   Well, it seems to me that makes for an *extremely* tight coupling > > between the model and the view. > > I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

Hi, and what's wrong with writing a fix for admin to make "inverted" m2m relation to show m2m if specified in list_display list? I know it's not easy to do for one who is not django creator, but since it's open source... ;) Core devs, what's your opinion? Such change is pretty logical, short

Re: ManyToManyField in both models/forms

Reread what I've written and understand it would be much better with a sample: class User(models.Model): groups = models.ManyToManyField('Group', related_name='groups', db_table=u'USERS_TO_GROUPS') class Group(models.Model): users = models.ManyToManyField(User, related_name='users',