The best solution would be just to release 0.92 today, as is (unless it
is fatally flawed which it doesn't seem to be)
People know that it is not a major release since it is still a 0.xx
release so nobody will complain about a few minor bugs.
It is important not to scare off potential users just
i agree, its not clear at all.
Documentation shows 0.95, but no 0.95 on the link.
I have been using django long enough to guess i shoud take the svn
trunk version but not everyone can do this.
A solultin could be to put the doc 0.91 as main doc and the rest ad
link on the top of the page (0.92 0.
I just googled: django 0.95 site:www.djangoproject.com
and found one other thing that could be potentially confusing:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/tutorial1/
The sample output under "The development server" section shows: Django
version 0.95 (post-magic-removal).
Of course, that i
On May 16, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Reports
> like this are helpful, but it would be easier if you could point to
> exactly where the problem is, since hunting it out takes a little
> longer
> otherwise.
My fault. I should have been more clear. Next time (and there will b
Hi Todd,
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 22:06 -0400, Todd O'Bryan wrote:
> Given that the Documentation directs people to the download page to
> download something that doesn't exist, it might be worth it to either:
> a. update the documentation to reflect the fact that the release is
> not currently ther
Given that the Documentation directs people to the download page to download something that doesn't exist, it might be worth it to either: a. update the documentation to reflect the fact that the release is not currently there, b. create a beta release for people to use, or c. choose some other opt
On 5/17/06, Todd O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I just checked in Subversion and it looks like version 0.92 or 0.95was never tagged as a release version. Is that correct?Yes. This is correct.Just to make this perfectly clear, and head off the confusion that seems to be reigning:
The only offici
agreed :)
On 5/16/06, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/17/06, Todd O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I just checked in Subversion and it looks like version 0.92 or 0.95
> > was never tagged as a release version. Is that correct?
>
> Yes. This is correct.
>
> Just to
8 matches
Mail list logo
