On 02/26/2015 08:41 AM, Carsten Fuchs wrote: > Hi all, > > Am 26.02.2015 um 13:54 schrieb Tim Graham: >> Yes, it's expected behavior. Please see the documentation on the topic: >> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/stable/topics/migrations/#historical-models >> > > I have not yet tried this, but won't squashing migrations as a side > effect also get us rid of dependencies of historical models?
Yes, squashmigrations is the right way to deal with this problem. If you have RunPython/RunSQL migrations that can also safely go away, you'll need to manually excise them before squashing in order to get a complete squash, since they are opaque to squashmigrations and won't be optimized across. See https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24109 Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/54EF40B4.6020305%40oddbird.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
