Added support for Django 1.4 and support for multiple requirements files #35

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 6, 2012

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@andres-torres-marroquin
Contributor

andres-torres-marroquin commented Apr 3, 2012

I added support for Django 1.4 and support for multiple requirements files.

Any question or doubt, please feel free to ask. Thanks heroku guys, you have been doing a good job.

note; tests are passing.

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kennethreitz

kennethreitz Apr 3, 2012

Contributor

Django 1.4 is already supported :)

Contributor

kennethreitz commented Apr 3, 2012

Django 1.4 is already supported :)

@andres-torres-marroquin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andres-torres-marroquin

andres-torres-marroquin Apr 3, 2012

Contributor

The new project structure is bit different. I just tried it and it seems not working for me: https://gist.github.com/7484a84aac4f09b290a8

Contributor

andres-torres-marroquin commented Apr 3, 2012

The new project structure is bit different. I just tried it and it seems not working for me: https://gist.github.com/7484a84aac4f09b290a8

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kennethreitz

kennethreitz Apr 3, 2012

Contributor

We support the new structure. Our quickstart article is being updated for Django 1.4, which is why you came into that inconsistiency.

Essentially, the old 'createproject' command created things at the "app" level, and the new one creates them at the "repo" level.

You can see proper workflow here: #30 (comment)

Contributor

kennethreitz commented Apr 3, 2012

We support the new structure. Our quickstart article is being updated for Django 1.4, which is why you came into that inconsistiency.

Essentially, the old 'createproject' command created things at the "app" level, and the new one creates them at the "repo" level.

You can see proper workflow here: #30 (comment)

@andres-torres-marroquin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andres-torres-marroquin

andres-torres-marroquin Apr 3, 2012

Contributor

I already read it. Please take a look at the code.

Contributor

andres-torres-marroquin commented Apr 3, 2012

I already read it. Please take a look at the code.

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kennethreitz

kennethreitz Apr 3, 2012

Contributor

Thanks for the contribution regarding multiple requirements files. I don't think that's the best approach today but I'll definately keep it in mind in the future.


As for increasing the depth of find for settings.py, I don't mind increasing the depth by one, but highly recommend against having a repository structured that way. That's not the intended usage of the new layout.

Also increasing the depth of the settings.py search increases the chance for false positives, so there is some tradeoff.

Contributor

kennethreitz commented Apr 3, 2012

Thanks for the contribution regarding multiple requirements files. I don't think that's the best approach today but I'll definately keep it in mind in the future.


As for increasing the depth of find for settings.py, I don't mind increasing the depth by one, but highly recommend against having a repository structured that way. That's not the intended usage of the new layout.

Also increasing the depth of the settings.py search increases the chance for false positives, so there is some tradeoff.

@kennethreitz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kennethreitz

kennethreitz Apr 6, 2012

Contributor

Hmm, on second thought, I can merge this. It's definitely an edge case, but a worthy one.

Contributor

kennethreitz commented Apr 6, 2012

Hmm, on second thought, I can merge this. It's definitely an edge case, but a worthy one.

@kennethreitz kennethreitz merged commit d2d3725 into heroku:master Apr 6, 2012

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment