Re: Composite fields

Y'OK. I'll create DEP 191 for the composite fields which point to model fields defined on the model (using the syntax you provided above) and DEP 192 for composite fields which define their own subfields (using the model syntax). I was getting confused trying to create a specification which

Django Admin new look

These look very nice and are a step in the right direction. If you only overrode admin/css/base.css I see no reason why this change can't be made. Hanging on to the old design for legacy purposes has gone on long enough, it's time to update. I would make a pull request after ensuring the new

Re: User.username max_length 254

Yeah, this is the point I was trying to make. I absolutely get your point about the impact to user, though, Josh. It just seems worth doing since this is an LTS release. On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 5:41:12 PM UTC-6, Daniel Hawkins wrote: > > I'd bet an extremely large portion of those users

Re: Extending the URL Dispatcher (GSoC 2015 proposal)

> E.g., flask uses a simple `` to match an integer and capture it in the `id` parameter. Support to check for conflicts would be a lot simpler with those patterns. It would definitely be a best-effort feature. >From my point of view, this by itself would make for a really nicely-scoped GSoC

Re: RE Composite fields-/ Multi Primary / Foreign keys

yeah, turns out I got busy with some other work and did not have time to work on this. Fortunately, Thomas has done a lot of great work yet. I'll just follow up on that thread. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to

Re: Formalizing template loader and debug api's

A small update: I have a local branch working again, but nothing ready to review. I have decided the origin.status and origin.tried apis I mentioned above aren't going to work. For templates to be safely cacheable in a multi-threaded environment, they basically need to be treated as immutable.

Re: User.username max_length 254

Hi All, I made a pull request. https://github.com/django/django/pull/4250/files I wish I would have thought of this two months ago, but I think it's too big of a change to get into 1.8 this late. I personally don't want to potentially have the release delayed because of possible issues with

Re: Composite fields

PR created. Unfortunately that's all the work I'm going to do on this over the weekend, so I'll come back and review comments on monday. Some of the reST syntax is slightly off. I will fix that up monday -- mainly just posting it so people have something to review, if they're that way inclined.

Re: Composite fields

Whoops -- would be useful to provide a link On Saturday, March 7, 2015 at 6:13:19 PM UTC+11, Thomas Stephenson wrote: > > PR created. Unfortunately that's all the work I'm going to do on this over > the weekend, so I'll come back and review comments on