On 6/29/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Granted. I suppose what I am driving at is that we need to have the discussion to determine what the correct behaviour _should_ be, and implement that - before we get to v1.0 and lock down API.
Russ Magee %-)
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Interesting... this could be interpreted as a bug in exclude(). It might
> be worth checking to see if this has been identified before, and if not,
> raising this as a bug. Sounds like it could be a problem with a join
> that should be OUTER, but is LEFT INNER (or some such).
This change might lead to some well hidden bugs. If someone was
deliberately using the behavior of join that doesn't get records that
don't have their related counterparts then those queries would suddenly
yield much more results than they used to.
Granted. I suppose what I am driving at is that we need to have the discussion to determine what the correct behaviour _should_ be, and implement that - before we get to v1.0 and lock down API.
Russ Magee %-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
