Thanks. I already got django-reversion working but I hit a strange quirk that I didn't understand.
I'll post the quirk here to see if you can help make sense of it all I did the equivalent of this for my model: version = Version.objects.get_for_date(your_model, datetime.datetime (2008, 7, 10)) But the result of version.revision (Revision instance) is huge! If I print it, it is about 50 lines long and appears to contain several different objects. Does a Revision instance represent a snapshot of the database or the state of a single object? Cheers On Jan 5, 2:58 pm, Andy McKay <a...@clearwind.ca> wrote: > On 10-01-05 11:54 AM, Stodge wrote: > > > I'm trying to use the Historical Records feature from Marty Alchin's > > "Pro Django" book, but it's not working for me when my model has two > > foreign keys to users. I'm getting > > > Accessor for field 'owner' clashes with related field.... Add a > > related_name argument to the definition for 'owner'. etc > > > It doesn't work if I add a related name to the field in my object. So > > either I'm doing something silly or Historical Records don't work with > > multiple foreign keys. Anyone used this successfully in this manner? > > I hit the same problems with that feature. In the end number of > relationships and tables it created got so complicated, that we gave up > on it. We usedhttp://code.google.com/p/django-reversion/instead, but > there are other choices. > -- > Andy McKay, @clearwind > Whistler conference:http://clearwind.ca/djangoski/
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@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.
