On 23 touko, 06:53, Donald Stufft <[email protected]> wrote: > So I just submitted a PR for the pre_syncdb > signal:https://github.com/django/django/pull/1200 > > After I get an eye or two on it, assuming no one has any issues with it I'll > merge it.
Minor error in docs spotted, otherwise looks good to me. I am thinking of adding a "for_action" kwarg for post_syncdb. Currently there is no way to distinguish between flush and syncdb. This makes it impossible to use the signal for schema changes. I guess the kwarg could be useful for migrations, too. Does this sound reasonable? Would the for_action kwarg help with South? The pre_syncdb signal isn't sent for flush. I think this is correct, as I can't see anything you could do in pre_syncdb signal for flush. If there are use cases, then I think adding for_action to pre_syncdb should be done. IMO we can do these minor changes after alpha if need be. - Anssi -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
