Re: Deprecating psycopg 1

On Dec 12, 5:09 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > > I prefer to think of it like this: > > Django 1.2 ships. Users read the release notes, and notice that > psycopg1 is now deprecated and will be removed. It's still there, and > still supported, so they can upgrade quickly and

Re: project folder with dots

On Oct 26, 7:23 pm, Tobias McNulty wrote: > > IMHO the project namespace is a useful one to keep around. If you lose the > project name space, then you risk polluting your python path with a lot of > generic 'urls' modules, among other things. > > If your directory

Re: Off Topic: Where to discuss web application frameworks in general

On Oct 21, 3:43 am, maxky wrote: > > I know, that this is not the right place for that discussion. Can > anyone redirect me > to the adequate bb or usenet group? Python's Web-SIG list is the best place for asking questions that will be read by a variety of different Python

Re: Brand new projects should pass their tests (the django.contrib.auth thing from #7611)

On Oct 6, 1:43 am, Simon Willison wrote: > > Option 6 would be welcome if anyone has any ideas. > Do what Grok does: $ grokproject newapp $ cd newapp $ ./bin/test Running tests at level 1 Total: 0 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors in 0.000 seconds. That is, if it's a

Re: Replacing get_absolute_url, I am against it

> If the objective is to seperate the two systems why is having the URL > system know about Models more acceptable than having the Model system > know about URLs?  This is most certainly a bike shed IMO. > > Alex Because it's the URL system which is making those models available on the web, not

Re: Python 2.6 abstract base classes

> Actually, I don't find it particularly appealing myself. The PEP > specifically states that it isn't intended to replace duck typing, so > I'm having trouble understanding the rationale in the first place. I > just wanted to make sure I knew now if there was any plan to support > them in the

Re: I want a pony: Django Cheeseshop

> > apt and rpm don't mix with project-specific packages and versioning > > (virtualenv/buildout). It is just not feasible (or even possible if > > something is built against django-0.96 and something else against > > django-1.0) > > Don't tell that to my laptop and some systems I admin which

Re: A Real Abstract BaseDatabaseWrapper Class

On Sep 11, 8:15 am, mtrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to propose that we fix up the abstract BaseDatabaseWrapper > class so that it actually has all the hooks it needs. To be slightly pedantic, if all the methods in a class contain an implementation, it's not an abstract base class,

Re: RDBMS vs ODBMS

h system I happen to be working in at the time. - Kevin Teague --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com