On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 13:40 -0400, Giovannetti, Mark wrote: [...] > Yes, the search I performed turned up a few others, too. > One was two years old, the other is 7 months old.
Opening a new ticket would not have helped that at all. Normally people create dupes because they are unaware of the existence of the others. You decided to do so even knowing the others existed. Um ... wow. Please don't intentionally create more unnecessary work for us. If a duplicate ticket gets opened, somebody has to hunt down the ticket it's a dupe of to get the number, close your ticket as dupe .. rinse, wash, repeat whenever this happens. Appreciate that there are better things we could be doing with our time here. > My point in posting is to raise this seemingly simple > issue and have it fixed once and for all. Tickets don't get fixed by people nagging about them. They get fixed by complete patches being created and posted on the relevant tickets and then review happening. > It is vexing > having to modify the django/contrib/auth/models.py file > on all upgrades to handle this. Suggests the problem should be fixed. Probably why there's a ticket open for that (rather than having been closed as, say, "wontfix"). > > Now, if you have any helpful comments on my original > questions (below), please provide them. Thanks. > > Original questions: > > I can easily fix this by changing the max_length > > values both to 255 (in the installed source code and the database) > > to overcome this. Should I be doing this? > > I asked the above "should I?" in case the law of unintended consequences > decides to express itself. Suck-and-see, I guess. Bump it up, run the test suite, see what happens. I can't think of anything that would immediately break. Better would be to fix the root problem, however. > > and > > > If so, can these values be bumped up in the official release? No. That would be backwards incompatible and break every existing installation out there (since as soon as they used a model that relied upon the longer value, it would no longer fit into their database). Once we bump it to 255, what happens the first time somebody ends up with 256 characters being required? Do we end up making it a text field? Whilst I realise you encountering this problem is annoying to you, put things into perspective here. This is one of a few hundred open tickets. It's relatively low priority in the scheme of things, since working around it by using shorter model and app names for now is quite possible and there are other bugs that are much easier to hit and less noticeable when you do. If it's really important to somebody -- on the level of showstopper for their particular purposes -- then that will be the person who is motivated to fix it by thinking through how to create a name that fits into the field length we have. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
