Am Dienstag, den 18.10.2011, 16:00 +0100 schrieb Tom Evans: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Paul Menzel <pm.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dan, > > > > > > [Reordering the message so that it is easier to see the connection.] > > > > Am Dienstag, den 18.10.2011, 06:46 -0700 schrieb Dan Gentry: > > > >> On Oct 18, 3:10 am, kenneth gonsalves <law...@thenilgiris.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2011-10-18 at 12:36 +0530, kenneth gonsalves wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 23:45 -0700, Kevin wrote: > >> > > > Currently I have been focusing on the following: > >> > > >> > > > * Django 1.2 > >> > > >> > > 1.3 belongs to the stone age - since you are learning, it would be a > >> > > good idea to work with the current svn trunk, updating every week or > >> > > so. > >> > > -- > >> > > >> > s/1.2/1.3/ > > > >> With all due respect to Mr. Gonsalves, I do not care to work with the > >> Django trunk unless I'm just playing around with something. My goal > >> is always to produce a production quality application. Even the more > >> stable than average Django trunk cannot provide the consistency needed > >> to deliver an app to a customer. Plus, I don't need the extra work of > >> basing my code on a moving target. When trunk becomes v1.4, I will > >> convert my applications and upgrade. > > > > Please read the message you are referring to again. Kenneth corrected > > the post [2] (although the `sed`-command should be `s/1.3/1.2/`. »The > > latest official version is 1.3.1.« [1], so Kenneth suggested to use the > > current stable release. > > > > I can't stand incorrect pedantry - this is my curse. > > Kenneth actually said that "1.3 is ancient, you should be using > trunk", which he corrected to "1.2 is ancient, you should be using > trunk". His advice, regardless of which version you look at, is to use > trunk - not the latest stable release.
You are right. I am sorry. […] Thanks, Paul
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
