id,summary,reporter,owner,description,type,status,component,version,severity,resolution,keywords,cc,stage,has_patch,needs_docs,needs_tests,needs_better_patch,easy,ui_ux 22007,Make import paths more consistent in documentation,kinjal.dixit@…,Martin Matusiak,"I am getting thrown by the documentation (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.6/topics/class-based-views/intro/#using-class-based-views), when they give this example: from django.http import HttpResponse from django.views.generic.base import View class MyView(View): def get(self, request): # return HttpResponse('result') For the first import, they are specifying only the folder names and omitting the actual python script which contains the definition of `class HttpResponse`, which is `response.py`. Here they are relying on the `__init__.py` to work. For the second import, they are not relying on the `__init__.py` and going all the way to specify the python script in which the `class View` is defined, which is `base.py`. If the first way is preferred, then the second import should be written as: from django.views.generic import View If the second way is preferred, then the first import should be written as: from django.http.request import HttpRequest I know that both are acceptable. I am just wondering why both are being used and not just one style. I think this is important because this will be what people will be writing in the code. I would very much love to see this (and other occurrences of this) to be identified and cleaned up.",Cleanup/optimization,closed,Documentation,1.6,Normal,fixed,"import module, import script, nlsprint14",Martin Matusiak,Accepted,0,0,0,0,1,0