That's an excellent point, Shai - if there are migrations they might be essential to the app functioning. I think in that case we should not have them work on 1.7 and up, and encourage people to send PRs to the apps moving the directory name if it would work with syncdb.
Andrew On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Shai Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > No, I think we can't do this generically. > > If an app ships (South) migrations, we cannot assume that syncdb is an > adequate replacement; the migrations may include data-migrations which > create > records the app needs. We could in general do something like, try to verify > that there are no data migrations (this is easier with South migrations > than > with Django migrations), or ask the user for confirmation, or add a > "ignore- > south-migrations" setting to list the relevant apps, or find some other > way for > the user to tell us that syncdb is ok for this app, but IMO that takes us a > step beyond Andrew's "fix is easy". > > Shai. > > > On Saturday 07 November 2015 12:13:02 Andrew Godwin wrote: > > I think if the fix is easy, we should continue to support them past 1.7, > > since we're retaining syncdb support. However, if it's crazy complicated, > > it's likely not worth it. > > > > Andrew > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:59 PM, David Filipovic > > <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > I have initially created the ticket > > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25618 which addressed the bug > that > > > would occur if south migrations somehow ended up being still present in > > > the migrations module. > > > > > > According to a report in: > > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25618#comment:7, this seems to > > > > > > break certain third party apps, in particular: > > > * non-upgraded apps that retained south migrations in the > migrations > > > > > > module but have not introduced Django migrations. An example of such an > > > app is `django-extensions` > > > > > > Personally, I think, these apps haven't really supported Django past > > > Django 1.6.x and if they claimed they did, it was a misconception on > > > their part. > > > > > > > > > However, in order not to break any apps that might have done this, I > > > created a new pull request, that fixes this problem in a way that will > > > not cause this issue. > > > > > > > > > I wanted to check what people thought here regarding whether this > should > > > be incorporated or not? > > > Should we make those apps fail and have them fully upgrade to support > > > 1.7+, or should we address this and let them silently keep the south > > > migrations? > > > > > > -- > > > 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/99820cef-4404-40aa-97 > > > f8-4d3acace0a3b%40googlegroups.com > > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/99820cef-4404-40aa- > > > 97f8-4d3acace0a3b% > 40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > > > . > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CAFwN1uoKv8UuZj0qwsQkJMom9pOSVaKKNzTpMnO31Fp5jtMW0Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
