Hi,
I was looking through the google summer of code 2012 wiki page and found
the "Best practices updates" problem interesting and would like to work
towards it. It would be really nice, if someone could explain in more
detail as to what exactly is expected there. I am moderately comfortable
with
First a little context..
I've been on the django-dev mailing list for quite a while .. since
about 1.0. I'm usually relatively quiet unless I think I have a good
insight about an issue. It's been a great source of learning, but also
a good way to notice recurring patterns.
On the other hand, I've
Julien, et. al.,
Seriously. Thank you. Amazing.
--
Justin Holmes
Head Instigator, SlashRoot Collective
SlashRoot: Coffee House and Tech Dojo
60 Main Street
New Paltz, NY 12561
845.633.8330
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" gr
2012/3/10 Łukasz Rekucki
> On 9 March 2012 21:10, Tom Evans wrote:
> > 2012/3/9 Łukasz Rekucki :
> >> On 9 March 2012 17:46, Tom Evans wrote:
>
[...]
> My point is that this kind of things change and we should have tools
> to deal with that. We already have the exact same problem with IPv6
>
On 9 March 2012 21:10, Tom Evans wrote:
> 2012/3/9 Łukasz Rekucki :
>> On 9 March 2012 17:46, Tom Evans wrote:
>>>
>>> Lets look at one isolated aspect. The User email field in d.c.auth is
>>> too short. Emails can be up to 248 characters long, and d.c.auth only
>>> allows 75.
>>
>> The latest RF
2012/3/9 Łukasz Rekucki :
> On 9 March 2012 17:46, Tom Evans wrote:
>>
>> Lets look at one isolated aspect. The User email field in d.c.auth is
>> too short. Emails can be up to 248 characters long, and d.c.auth only
>> allows 75.
>
> The latest RFC[1] actually specifies this as 256 *octets* with
On 9 March 2012 17:46, Tom Evans wrote:
>
> Lets look at one isolated aspect. The User email field in d.c.auth is
> too short. Emails can be up to 248 characters long, and d.c.auth only
> allows 75.
The latest RFC[1] actually specifies this as 256 *octets* with max of
64 octets for the local part
While, I generally agree with the current approach, especially this close
to release. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit.
Schema migrations have been talked about for quite a while. There are at
least 3 external implementations I know of: South, nashvegas, and
django-evolution. I'm unsur
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> On 09/03/12 14:49, Tom Evans wrote:
>
>>> Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for true
>>> this time) who needed it stepped up and said "I'll implement it and see that
>>> it ends up in trunk"
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, that
On 09/03/12 14:49, Tom Evans wrote:
>> Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for true
>> this time) who needed it stepped up and said "I'll implement it and see that
>> it ends up in trunk"
>>
>
> I'm sorry, that completely mis-characterises the situation. Lots of
> peop
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Luke Plant wrote:
> What you are really saying is this: being pragmatic means that we
> prioritise *your* immediate need above the need to keep the code and the
> docs maintainable, and above the need to maintain compatibility with
> existing installations.
>
> Ther
On 09/03/12 09:37, Clay McClure wrote:
> Who's talking about a migration? I'm asking for something that will work
> for *new* installations; existing installations can continue
> authenticating against usernames for all I care :)
>
> Moreover, I'm thoroughly frustrated by the fact that developer
Hi Friends,
I have a cms based existing django site. I want to translate it to german
or other language, Please suggest which is the best method?
--
Regards
Vishnu V.G
Software Programmer
Mobile : 8714321452(Docomo)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>> Should these things really take five years? What happened to pragmatic?
>
>
> Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for true
> this time) who needed it stepped up and said "I'll implement it and see that
> it end
Hi,
The contrib/auth still uses send_mail for sending an email .But since,
send_mail is currently frozen, It is better to invoke EmailMessage directly
from contrib/auth instead of going through send_mail and that in turn
invoking EmailMessage. I have submitted a ticket along with a patch for
th
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Danny Adair wrote:
> It's the "required" of username that's the problem if you don't want a
> username at all when authenticating against email.
> It would have to be not required and check required fields in clean()
> where the backend could be asked what's really
My django-email-login app (
https://bitbucket.org/tino/django-email-login/overview) does this by
putting a hash of the email adress in the username field. It isn't as nice
as it could be, but it works.
I would really like to see this solved another way, but it is a hard
problem with the current re
On 9 March 2012 06:15, Λlisue wrote:
> I have the following codes for testing model and it's works correctly in
> Django 1.3 + Python 2.7 without unittest2::
>
> # in method of TestCase subclass ---
> user1 = User.objects.create_user(username='user1',
> email='us...
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 21:13, Florian Apolloner wrote:
>[...]
> Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for true
> this time) who needed it stepped up and said "I'll implement it and see that
> it ends up in trunk"
It's the "required" of username that's the problem if you
Hi,
On Friday, March 9, 2012 6:54:16 AM UTC+1, Clay McClure wrote:
>
> if settings.AUTH_EMAIL_AUTHENTICATION:
>
Hell, not another ugly setting like this.
Should these things really take five years? What happened to pragmatic?
>
Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 20:01, Donald Stufft wrote:
> The major issue is that there is no way to do schema migrations in core
> (currently). So there's no way to handle increasing the length of the
> username field.
I don't understand what the "username" field length has to do with it.
And I thin
21 matches
Mail list logo
