Ditto. I'm ok with a tiny shim for GFK, and we should get the API right for RelatedObject going forward, (as long as it's at least _possible_ to detect which is which and write code that works on both 1.7 and 1.8).
On Monday, December 22, 2014 9:29:15 AM UTC-5, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > 2014-12-22 8:39 GMT+01:00 Russell Keith-Magee <[email protected] > <javascript:>>: > >> The question: Do we - >> >> 1) Accept this particular internal specific naming of GFK as a quirk >> reflecting the limitations of contrib.admin >> >> 2) Try to nail down what a "virtual" field means, or find some >> alternative flag to identify what "GFK" is a proxy for in this case. >> > > I'm in favour of (1) mostly because of the YAGNI principle. Defining > "virtual" without a concrete use case sounds hard. > > > The question: Do we: >> >> 1) Accept this as a backwards incompatible change. >> >> 2) Accept the inconsistency in the new API. >> >> 3) Find a pair of names other than model/related_model to represent the >> "subject/object" pair in fields >> > > I'm also in favour of (1) because the point of a refactoring is to clean > up inconsistencies. We can say something in the release notes to help > people who have used the RelatedObject private API. > > > Best, > > -- > Aymeric. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/13baaf10-2395-47f6-8d1a-3a3b1543b7ff%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
