On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Luis Masuelli
wrote:
> What about integrating polymorphic features in the ORM? It's like having
> the features of django-polymorphic but in the core.
>
> The polymorphism could be acheved by:
> 1. Having contenttypes installed (this is
Aymeric +1
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> It's exciting to see that much energy directed at Django! At the same
> time, it's sad to see it tragically misused.
>
> If you want to help, there are currently 124 pull
What about integrating polymorphic features in the ORM? It's like having
the features of django-polymorphic but in the core.
The polymorphism could be acheved by:
1. Having contenttypes installed (this is a common pattern).
2. Specifying a root (first ancestor) model class like:
Everyone,
It's exciting to see that much energy directed at Django! At the same time,
it's sad to see it tragically misused.
If you want to help, there are currently 124 pull requests on GitHub, 133
patches on Trac and 38 new tickets, all needing a review.
Any of these would be a better use
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you aren't entitled to your own
facts. The terms primary/replica are extremely well established, perhaps
even moreso than master/slave: https://imgur.com/a/pCp3d, the suggestion
that this is a gross violation of computer science nomenclature is pure
Alex,
With all due respect (I mean it),
The perception from the outside is that you didn't put the Django project best
interest on the first line in that PR / merge but something more personal (plus
being a confusing merge in terms of computer science).
Cheers
--
You received this message
Thank you all for the feedback and thanks Tim for the merge.
I'm very interested in the idea of integrating with Gunicorn. We can take
things slowly with that integration (starting as suggested with just an
option to use Gunicorn with runserver command), and limit modifying the
current server
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Justin Holmes wrote:
> OK. How about "canon" and "replica" ?
I think we all get sent to the naughty step if we continue to discuss
this, so I will just say that "master" is being used as an adjective
in this context, it is the master
OK. How about "canon" and "replica" ?
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Justin Holmes
> wrote:
> > I don't want to devolve completely into an etymological circlejerk here,
> but
> > my sense
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Justin Holmes wrote:
> I don't want to devolve completely into an etymological circlejerk here, but
> my sense is that "master" in the VCS sense is like "master key," rather than
> describing the interpersonal relationship of involuntary
Yup, the BDFL is still strong in this one ;)
Cal
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> Hi everybody.
>
> The Django core developers have made our decision on the terminology we're
> going to use; I'd ask that you stop using django-developers to debate
Hi everybody.
The Django core developers have made our decision on the terminology we're
going to use; I'd ask that you stop using django-developers to debate this
further.
Alex
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Unai Zalakain
wrote:
> Greetings!
>
>
> I saw that
Greetings!
I saw that someone suggested "leader" and "follower" - I haven't
thought through whether I find this more palatable.
Well, as an individualist I am, I find those terms quite uninviting too.
Hoping to downplay it a bit, what about BDSM terms "Dominant" and
"Submissive", "Dom" and
I just want to clarify a few misunderstanding that I keep seeing popping up.
1. If you read the original
ticket, https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22667 you will notice that my
original concern wasn't the word 'master', nor the word 'slave', but the
usage of both terms together. What
I don't want to devolve completely into an etymological circlejerk here,
but my sense is that "master" in the VCS sense is like "master key," rather
than describing the interpersonal relationship of involuntary servitude.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Malcolm Box wrote:
FWIW, I think the main objection is to the word "slave", not to "master".
Otherwise we'll be renaming the git branches soon...
So "master" / "replica" would work.
Malcolm
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 16:26:07 UTC+1, Justin Holmes wrote:
>
> I think I agree that "primary" is a bad choice. Can you
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 17:41:53 UTC+1, Ramiro Morales wrote:
>
> For this particular change I'd go with what Moayad proposes but
> without the backward compatibility command line switch (assuming it
> actually enhance the reloadind responsiveness).
>
>
>
I've tried the 1-liner version here
I think I agree that "primary" is a bad choice. Can you suggest something
other than master? Something that will address the concerns posed in the
past two threads?
I saw that someone suggested "leader" and "follower" - I haven't thought
through whether I find this more palatable.
On Thu, Jun
For once, I'm going to +1 you Tom.
Cal
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> Please revert this change as soon as possible.
>
> If the project has become so PC sensitive that the word "slave" is no
> longer permitted to be uttered, then "replica" is an
Please revert this change as soon as possible.
If the project has become so PC sensitive that the word "slave" is no
longer permitted to be uttered, then "replica" is an alternate term,
but "primary" is not.
Have you ever set up "primary-primary replication"? No, neither have
I. Master-master
20 matches
Mail list logo