Re: Regarding queries cache...

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:51 PM, "Germán M. Bravo" wrote: > Regarding queries cache... but not in the way almost everyone usually thinks > of this cache (for caching the queries results) ...but cache for the actual > queries themselves, for the query tree generated by

Re: Where should this test be placed

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Aaron Cannon wrote: > Hi all. > > Trying to help out with some of the Trac tickets, and wasn't sure > where tests should be placed for this ticket: > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/17504 > > Is there an existing package

Re: MySQL connection pooling - preferred method??

Hi Cal, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're looking for. The position of the core team has been fairly clear -- there are third party connection pooling tools that handle connection pooling very well. The recommendation of the core team is that you should use these tools. The alternative is

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Alec Taylor wrote: > Thanks, hadn't thought to go with NoSQL. :) > > Quick side-note: I received 14 emails on the django-devel list between > 30 and 40 minutes ago. Strange, seeing as this one is dated 10 days > ago. Google Groups problem?

Re: Feature request: read-only admin view

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Chris Wilson wrote: > Hi all, > > I really like how the admin interface does a lot of the work for me in > developing a site with basic CRUD functions, and a few free bonuses > like pagination and list filtering. > > I agree with all the

Re: Ad-hoc Django integration for fault-tolerance

. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Adam "Cezar" Jenkins <emperorce...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also got the backlog, in addition my gmail has been buggy and slow for a > few days, so I'm assuming it's Google having an issue. > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 30/01/2012, at 6:05 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote: > On 01/29/2012 04:27 PM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote: >> >> You're not discriminated - everyone is treated the same way here and >> judged only by their actions. By disobeying the rules of this list, >> you're disrespecting it's members. If you

Re: End-user defined fields, how would you approach it?

On 30/01/2012, at 9:51 AM, Etienne Robillard wrote: > i still think stackoverflow.com is retarded. Ie it attracts stupid peoples > with stupid questions towards stupid solutions. :-) > > As for your opinions, I respect them as always and that should be all the > same for me, ie without stupid

Re: noinput option for testing

On 22/02/2012, at 11:01 AM, Daryl wrote: > Hi All, > > When running tests I often end up crashing things and when restarting > the tests i get the line; > > Creating test database for alias 'default'... > Got an error creating the test database: (1007, "Can't create database > 'test_x';

Re: Revisiting multiline tags

On 24/02/2012, at 12:18 PM, colinta wrote: > 1) It's an easy fix. > 2) It's backwards compatible. > 3) It has no impact on performance. > 4) LOTS of people want it. > > and most importantly > > 5) We could stop asking for it. > > This issue is such an easy "sure, why not!?" > > Please, O

Re: call_command; add *.pyc and *.pyo files to commands list

On 01/03/2012, at 12:07 PM, bhuztez wrote: > I improved patch for #14087 weeks ago, which add support for PEP 302 > importers. I am just wondering why the core team did not even bother > to review it. > This is covered in the FAQ on contributing to Django:

Re: Generic edit generic views don't create `fail_silently` messages anymore.

On 01/03/2012, at 4:47 AM, Simon Charette wrote: > Now deprecated generic create_update function based views (create_object, > update_object, delete_object) use to create silently failing success messages > when the submitted form was valid. > > Was it a design decision to omit this feature

Re: New feature: Templated email messages

On 03/03/2012, at 7:34 AM, Carl Meyer wrote: > Hello Artem, > > On 03/02/2012 03:04 PM, Артем Рыжов wrote: >> I'm working as a web developer for many years. One of the most frequent >> tasks >> is sending email messages. And template system is very usefull for this task >> as for web pages.

Re: Django participation in Google Summer of Code 2012

On 07/03/2012, at 5:35 AM, Kushagra Sinha wrote: > Are there plans for Django participating in this year's Google Summer of > Code. The organization application deadline is on 9th March. I would love to > participate as a student. > Yes, we are planning to apply as an organization. If

Re: Django participation in Google Summer of Code 2012

, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> > wrote: > > On 07/03/2012, at 5:35 AM, Kushagra Sinha wrote: > > > Are there plans for Django participating in this year's Google Summer of > > Code. The organization application deadline is on 9th March. I woul

Re: Just a crazy idea..

On 10/03/2012, at 1:13 PM, h3 wrote: > And this idea is just: a patch server. > > Imagine a site where developers can browse, upload, rate and comment > patches. Something like django snippets, but instead of snippets, it's > patches for django. > > A developer can upload a patch (linked or

Re: [GSoc 2012]: Want to work on keeping django code uptodate with the best practices

On 10/03/2012, at 3:48 PM, Karthik Abinav wrote: > 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

Re: authentication by email

On 10/03/2012, at 1:52 AM, Joe & Anne Tennies wrote: > 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

Re: authentication by email

On 12/03/2012, at 7:08 AM, Joe & Anne Tennies wrote: > Can I ask for one change this late in the project to the 1.4 release if it's > only the documentation for this bug? I'm hoping someone at PyCon might be > able to "sneak this in." > > Can we add a note to the EmailField documentation that

Re: authentication by email

On 12/03/2012, at 6:58 AM, Joe & Anne Tennies wrote: > I started a new page off the old > https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SchemaEvolution > (https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SchemaEvolutionDesign). It's not > complete at this point, I just did a brain dump of what I remembered hearing

Re: [GSoC 2012] Improved error reporting

On 15/03/2012, at 1:23 PM, Boris Bobrov wrote: > Hi! > I'd like to participate in GSoC-2012 and the interesting task for me is [0]. > > What kind of plan would you expect from me? Should it be detailed ("I'll fix > error handling in part X by doing A") or it can be more general ("I'll fix >

Re: [GSoC 2012] Improved error reporting

On 16/03/2012, at 2:07 AM, Boris Bobrov wrote: > В сообщении от Thursday 15 of March 2012 11:07:03 Russell написал: > >> Essentially, we're going to be looking for evidence that you understand the >> scope of the problem you're proposing to solve. Generic statements like >> "I'm going to fix

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 17/03/2012, at 12:53 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Hi folks -- > > This discussion of user authentication by email is getting pretty nasty; can > we start over? I know there's a lot of quite legitimate frustration here, but > we really need to drop the personal stuff and focus on the

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 17/03/2012, at 4:16 PM, Ian Lewis wrote: > Hi, > > Eric Florenzano and I actually had a discussion about this at PyCon. > My company does Django development and simply doesn't use the Django > auth app because it tries to do authentication and authorization in > one app and the User models

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 17/03/2012, at 10:46 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> * It solves the immediate problem ... >> >> As I see it, the immediate problem is that developers want to be able to >> modify t

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

On 18/03/2012, at 7:38 PM, Kushagra Sinha wrote: > Abstract > -- > A database migration helper has been one of the most long standing feature > requests in Django. Though Django has an excellent database creation helper,

Re: GSoc Improved Error Reporting Project

On 18/03/2012, at 5:44 AM, melanie.s@googlemail.com wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Melanie Rao, I am a student at the University of Edinburgh. > In the final year of my Bachelors in Artificial Intelligence and > Software Engineering, I was hoping to work on an open source project > this

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 18/03/2012, at 12:19 PM, Ian Lewis wrote: >>> 5. Basic username (or email)/password authentication can be provided. >>> The app has a base user class from which a basic abstract user with >>> username/password is defined. This can implement setting passwords >>> properly and provide forms

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 20/03/2012, at 8:00 AM, Ian Lewis wrote: >> * One very big new feature -- the ability to have multiple User models in >> the same project. >> >> This is the one controversial part of your proposal, from my perspective. In >> every situation I can think of, I can only see it being an

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 20/03/2012, at 8:38 PM, Tom Evans wrote: > >> * It's completely backwards compatible. >> >> If you've got an existing app with normal ForeignKeys to auth.User, >> the app will continue to work, without any migrations, as long as >> the rest of your project uses auth.User. It will also

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 21/03/2012, at 1:49 AM, Бачериков Вячеслав wrote: >> > There other way do do this. > For example tunning of User model can done by configuration, like that: > > EXTENDED_USERMODEL_SETTINGS = {'email': >{'uniq':True,'max_length':255, >

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 20/03/2012, at 10:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Russell Keith-Magee >> <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >>> >>> The key point here is that we

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 21/03/2012, at 2:00 AM, Tom Evans wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Donald Stufft > wrote: >> What Alex said. If it was _just_ the username then you'd have a good >> argument for >> a setting like that. However there's username, email, some people want to >>

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 21/03/2012, at 4:57 AM, ptone wrote: > > > > The key point here is that we're not forcing every Django user to discover > > by accident that they need to run an ALTER TABLE statement in order for > > their projects to keep working. The opt-in nature of the change is key. > > > > > > I

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 21/03/2012, at 12:23 PM, Clay McClure wrote: > On Saturday, March 17, 2012 8:52:01 PM UTC-4, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > The only way I can see around this problem is to come up with a way for > ForeignKey(User) to transparently become an effective > LazyForeignKey('auth

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 23/03/2012, at 9:50 AM, Alex Ogier wrote: > I hope you don't mind, I added solution 2a. It's basically solution 2 minus > the monkey-patching and resultant circular dependency issues, and > correspondingly requires apps to opt-in to supporting pluggable Users. It > documents the reasoning

Re: gsoc proposal, dynamic list form field

On 24/03/2012, at 4:05 AM, Roy McElmurry IV wrote: > I would like to participate in Google summer of code. I am proposing > the following contribution and would like to get some feedback about > ways to improve and refine the design and proposal. I have created a > UML diagram of an initial

Re: gsoc proposal, dynamic list form field

On 25/03/2012, at 4:41 PM, Roy McElmurry IV wrote: > Okay, I have created a Google Doc of my proposal. I have greatly > elaborated on the idea. I have enabled commenting for anyone with the > link. Please take a look and let me know either in this forum or in > the Google Doc if there is

Re: make the source code of the django tutorial available ?

On 27/03/2012, at 4:59 AM, Michael wrote: > Hi, > > I do not know if this is the right place so sorry if not. > I am new to Django for a few months. I love the official django tutorial and > I went through it. > However, I actually never kept the whole tutorial source code on my PC so >

Re: Making the EmailField RFC-compliant: proposals here!

On 27/03/2012, at 9:00 PM, Alex Ogier wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2012 8:45 AM, "Hanne Moa" wrote: > > > > Let's just do it. Let's not wait for a generic migration tool! I'd > > rather the energy was spent on the app-refactor *now*, and fixing the > > email-fields *now*, which

Re: Dropping django.utils.simplejson

Option 2 looks best to me. There's no reason for us to ship JSON any more, but we should still guide people through the transition process. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On 30/03/2012, at 7:07 AM, Łukasz Rekucki wrote: > Alex's comment on ticket #18013 reminded me of this. Is there any > reason not

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

------- > I have experience working in a high voltage database migration through my > internship as stated before. I am also familiar with Django's contribution > guidelines and have written a couple of patches[7]. One patch has been > accepted and the second got blocked by

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

On 03/04/2012, at 5:06 AM, j4nu5 wrote: > Hi Russell, > > Thanks for the prompt reply. > > * You aren't ever going to eat your own dogfood. You're spending the GSoC > building an API that is intended for use with schema migration, but you're > explicitly not looking at any part of the

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 03/04/2012, at 8:35 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > Hi folks -- > > I've written up a proposal for how *I* would like to address refactoring > auth.user: https://gist.github.com/2245327. > > In essence, this does two things: > > * Vastly "prunes" the required fields on auth.user. The only

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 04/04/2012, at 4:31 AM, Carl Meyer wrote: > > By the way, I took the liberty of removing from the wiki page the > references to models/settings circular dependencies, because AFAIK the > statements made about it on the wiki page were simply incorrect. > Importing settings does _not_

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 04/04/2012, at 4:42 AM, Carl Meyer wrote: > On 04/03/2012 02:34 PM, Daniel Sokolowski wrote: >> Correct me if I’m wrong but both LFK or a swappable user model approach >> like your fail to address issue of extensibility. If today my project is >> authorizing with username and password and

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 04/04/2012, at 4:34 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Alex Ogier wrote: >> I have written up a little bit about the alternate proposal that I made a >> while ago, Solution 2a >> from https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ContribAuthImprovements

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 04/04/2012, at 8:44 PM, Tai Lee wrote: > I'm not so sure that it's necessary or even desirable to solve the "general" > problem of swappable models. If anyone can swap any model by changing a > setting, that sounds like a recipe for confusion to me. Sure, but that's not what I've proposed.

Re: [GSoC 2012] Schema Alteration API proposal

On 04/04/2012, at 11:50 PM, j4nu5 wrote: > Hi Russell, > Thanks for your immense patience :-) > > These are some additions to my proposal above, based on your inputs: > Status of current 'creation' code in django: > The current code, for e.g. sql_create_model in > django.db.backends.creation is

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 04/04/2012, at 10:57 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> My point is that there is nothing about this problem that is unique to User. >> Django's own codebase contains another example of exactly the same pattern

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 05/04/2012, at 12:20 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <ja...@jacobian.org> wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> My point is that there is nothing about this problem that is

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 06/04/2012, at 7:27 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> I haven't been following this thread nearly closely enough. But ISTM that >> any abstraction that doesn't let the admin work with any User (assuming it >> supplies the right

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

Hi Rohan, Apologies for the lack of response. Anyone who has put effort into writing up a proposal certainly deserves a response of some kind, so we've dropped the ball here. In our defence, here's a couple of the reasons why your proposal probably hasn't got a wild response: * You've

Re: GSoC 2012: Security Enhancements

On 06/04/2012, at 3:54 PM, Rohan Jain wrote: > Hi Russel, > > Thanks for the reply. > > On 14:42 +0800 / 6 Apr, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> Hi Rohan, >> >> Apologies for the lack of response. Anyone who has put effort into writing >> up a p

Re: Django is not a serious framework, really

On Wednesday, 11 April 2012 at 8:10 PM, Jason Ma wrote: > Hi, > I download and tried to use the Django 1.4 yesterday. I am a dummy > and I just follow the official document, but When I just start a > project. > I found that it is what I see from my computer: > >

Re: Django is not a serious framework, really

On Wednesday, 11 April 2012 at 11:10 PM, bhuztez wrote: > The document clearly states that "You'll see a message for each > database table it creates". > > I guess Jason Ma had a hard time reading the document because it is > written in English. Native Chinese speakers who are not quite

Re: More on Customizable Serialization

Hi Tom, On Friday, 27 April 2012 at 12:44 PM, Tom Christie wrote: > Seeing another proposal for Customizable Serialization for the GSoC this year > prompted me to dust off the bits of work I've done along similar lines. > I'd really like to see this get properly addressed in core and I thought

Re: Redesign of djangoproject.com?

Hi Dana, I completely agree. I've been trying to get a redesign of djangoproject.com going for quite some time under the auspices of the Django Foundation. As you can see from the lack of changes, you can see that I haven't been particularly successful :-( The fundamental problem is that we

Re: Redesign of djangoproject.com?

> elsewhere to talk? You can get in touch with me here: > > http://danawoodman.com/ > > > > -- > > Dana Woodman > > d...@danawoodman.com (mailto:d...@danawoodman.com) > > http://www.danawoodman.com > > > > > > On Saturday,

Re: Redesign of djangoproject.com?

Hi Dana On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 1:45 AM, Dana Woodman wrote: > Very true Chris. I'd love to see the documents that were put together when > this was discussed last time, if they're still around. > I've included the design brief in my response to Ned. If you're looking for something else

Re: Dogfood the new class-based views in contrib.syndication?

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Stephen Burrows wrote: > I was recently working with django's syndication framework, and noticed that > it felt clunky in a lot of ways. For example, I can only access the request > and the kwargs for the function during the get_object

Re: Customizable Serialization check-in

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Piotr Grabowski wrote: > Hi, > > During this week I have a lot of work so I didn't manage to present my > revised proposal in Monday like i said. Sorry. I have it now: > https://gist.github.com/2597306 Hi Piotr, At a high level, I think

Re: Djangopeople.net status

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Alex Sosnovskiy wrote: >>> https://convore.com/djangopeoplenet-development/ - gives http404 >> >> Djangopeople.net is dead? >> >> If to be honest I don't

Re: Djangopeople.net status

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote: > Hi Russell, > > can't we integrate it into the new djangoproject.com site? I would prefer > that over having it hosted externally etc... There's two separate issues here: * Having it hosted somewhere under the

Re: Djangopeople.net status

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Renié <bubu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Russell Keith-Magee > <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn <aa...@heyaaron.com> >> wrote: >

Re: Djangopeople.net status

o > cost to DSF (or anyone else). > > Thanks, > Patrick Altman > > > --- > Patrick Altman > Nashville, TN > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Bruno Renié <bubu...@gmail.com

Re: Bug (in 1.4+) double slash in URL leads to incorrect ``request.build_absolute_uri()``

Thanks for the report -- but is there a particular reason that you're reporting this here, rather than on the ticket tracker? Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: > A request to: > >    http://www.example.com:8080//foo-bar-baz.html > >

Re: Incorrect serialization for 3d GEOSGeometry

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Craig de Stigter wrote: > Hi folks > > > I discovered django.contrib.gis support for 3d geometries is pretty > patchy. I realised that the database stuff only worked in postgis, etc, but > it turns out even the serialisation methods on

Re: Re-design "proposal" for djangoproject.com

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Adam "Cezar" Jenkins wrote: > > > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Horst Gutmann wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Collazo >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > So, I spend a few hours

Re: Re-design "proposal" for djangoproject.com

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Adam "Cezar" Jenkins wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Erik Stein wrote: >> >> >> >> Am 21.05.2012 um 04:06 schrieb Adam Cezar Jenkins: >> >> > I'm sad to hear that about the pony. The pony itself isn't the

Re: Re-design "proposal" for djangoproject.com

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Adam "Cezar" Jenkins <emperorce...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> >> >> So - if you think there's a need for a showcase

Re: Customizable Serialization check-in

Hi Piotr; Apologies for the delay in responding to your updated API. On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Piotr Grabowski wrote: > I do some changes to my previous API: (https://gist.github.com/2597306 <- > change are included) > >  * which fields of object are default

Re: Non-default managers in related field lookups

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > It feels to me that each place that ._default_manager is mentioned > here is a misfeature: > https://github.com/django/django/blob/2cd516002d43cdc09741618f0a0db047ee6d78fd/django/db/models/fields/related.py > > As an example,

Re: Non-default managers in related field lookups

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote: > On Jun 1, 12:26 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> > wrote: >> Is this really something that's going to be able to be managed at the >> routing level? It seems to me t

Re: Non-default managers in related field lookups

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Sebastian Goll <sebastian.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:26:54 +0800 > Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > >> Here's a counter-proposal: (…) >> >> So, using your example: >> >>

Re: Non-default managers in related field lookups

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote: > On Jun 1, 1:43 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> > wrote: >> > Just as a bike-shedding thought: Would it be possible to have >> > frank.events.confirmed.all()

Re: Non-default managers in related field lookups

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Jeremy Dunck <jdu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Russell Keith-Magee > <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Jeremy Dunck <jdu...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >>> Candid

Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

Hi all, Following the BDFL pronouncement of a preferred option for customisable User models in contrib.auth [1], I've just pushed a branch to Github that contains a draft implementation [2]. It's not ready for trunk quite yet, but you can use this code to set up a custom User model, and then log

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote: > On Jun 4, 6:12 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> > wrote: >>  * The swapping mechanic is set up using a new Meta option on models >> called 'swappable' that defines

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > Understood & agreed (the "this model is dynamic made explicit" part > seems really important specifically). > > I am afraid of the hard-coding of meta.swappable must be 'SOME_VAR' > which then references

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Jun 7, 11:57 am, Florian Apolloner wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 4:32:02 PM UTC+2, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: >> >> > Still, yet another API idea: [snip] >> >> Then,

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote: > On 8 kesä, 02:43, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> >  - For documentation: It should be suggested that the example MyUser >> > should define class M

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> wrote: > On 8 kesä, 13:43, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> That's certainly an interesting use case. However, I can think of at >> least 2 ways it could be mitigated. >

Re: Test runner with search

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On 14 kesä, 13:35, Chris Wilson wrote: >> I've made some improvements (in my view) to the DjangoTestSuiteRunner. I >> got tired of having to remember my test class names and of typing so much:

Re: Django-nonrel patches

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Adam "Cezar" Jenkins wrote: > I'm only lightly involved in the project, but there is some misinformation > going around about it. > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Daniel Greenfeld  wrote: >> >> >> >> We evaluated

Re: Proposal: Add support for PEP 302 importers

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM, bhuztez wrote: > Django makes assumptions about the filesystem layout of python > packages here and there, and will silently skip any app which does not > meet Django's assumptions without raise up any warning. I had been > bitten by this many

Re: How to generate an edit form for django comments

Hi Sachin, Django-Developers is a forum for discussing the development of Django itself, not for general user queries. General user queries should be posted to Django-users. You should also refrain from posting the same question to both lists. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 2:44

Re: Emberjs Vs knockoutjs with django?

Hi Anand, I can only assume you're really excited about this blog post, but please: 1) Don't cross post. Pick the right list, and post once. 2) Don't post things like this to Django-developers. This is a list for discussing the development of Django itself. Yours, Russ Magee %-) On Tue, Jul

Re: Customizable Serialization check-in

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Piotr Grabowski wrote: > Hi, > > It is time to midterm evaluation of my participation in gsoc so I want to > summarize in this check-in what I have done in last month. > https://gist.github.com/3085250 - here is something that can be >

Re: pre_init/post_init vs. performance

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > I was poking around in our (Votizen's) use of signals and thinking > about making some tooling so that signal usage was a bit more > transparent. > > In doing so, I noticed that GenericForeignKey hooks the model pre_init >

Re: Optional operator index discussion

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:19 AM, Eric Floehr wrote: > I'd like to open up a discussion on the possibilities of having a way to > optionally specifying not to create operator indexes on CharField's when > db_index=True. Based on the consensus from this discussion, I'll

Re: Ticket 18685

Hi Christopher, The process from here: 1) You convince someone else in the community to review your patch 2) They look at the patch, and mark it Ready for Checkin; or, they give you feedback, and you go back to step 1 3) Someone on the core team commits the patch. The "someone else" for

Re: Python 3 - style question

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:58 AM, charettes wrote: > I think this will only be an issue for django application maintainers. > > IMHO, projects target a specific version of python and won't have to provide > python 2-3 compatibility. Am I wrong? Yes and no. On the one hand

Re: new syntax for management commands

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:26 AM, dffdgsdfgsdfhjhtre wrote: > https://github.com/zacharyvoase/django-boss > http://blog.zacharyvoase.com/2009/12/09/django-boss/ > > What is the outlook of something like this replacing the current way > management commands are handled by django?

Re: new syntax for management commands

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sunday, August 12, 2012 2:22:58 AM UTC+2, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> I'll agree that it looks appealing. However, as always, my question is >> about back

Re: new syntax for management commands

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Melvyn Sopacua wrote: > On 13-8-2012 1:54, Alex Gaynor wrote: > >> In my view, the current largest source of boilerplate with management >> commands is where they have to be, you have to stick them 3 directories >> deep. Writing a command

Re: Breaking out localflavor

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > I'd like to move all Django localflavor code into a separate package, > distributed separately from Django the framework. +1. I've had the exact same thought myself over the past couple of years. My hesitation

Re: Breaking out localflavor

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Adrian Holovaty <adr...@holovaty.com> >>

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Victor Hooi wrote: > Hi, > > I'm just wondering, has there been any updates on the User model refactor? > > My understanding is that this is the official way of handling Users going > forward. > > Is there any roadmap on when it might hit

Re: Draft branch: Swappable User models in contrib.auth

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > I believe changes to auth (and several other things) are waiting for > contrib.migrations. It will be some time... Incorrect. The strategy that was approved for trunk won't require migrations unless you want to change

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >