On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Adam Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > It does seem like a somewhat arbitrary historical restriction. Collin's > PoC change is surprisingly small and simple. > > Seems like it would be fine if Django allowed add() and let any errors >> about missing data bubble-up. >> > As the person who *made* the “somewhat arbitrary historical restriction”… :-)
Honestly - the reason it was made was scope creep. I was trying to land Eric’s work on #6095, which was already moderately complex. Nobody disagreed that adding an object to an m2m with a through model was a *bad* idea - there were just a few design decisions that had to be made. But if we made those decisions, #6095 was going to take *another* couple of months to land; the perfect being the enemy of the good, we decided to limit scope and land “simple” m2m add, and revisit the issue later. I guess now is “later”… :-) Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJxq849m632K%3DaMfXGBtF%3DhMXFS9ujzU6xfUzNxSRkkN_UrkqQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
