On 28/12/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-12-22, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, sorry for the long delay in replying. Holiday season and work
> craziness is getting in the way of writing free software - which is
> really the fun part isn't it? ;)
:-)
> It's
On 12/15/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Assuming that the implementation matches the proposal, I would say
> > there is a realistic chance of it getting accepted into core. However,
> > this would require that the implementation is up to date, and bug free
> > (including tests t
The patch I previous sent in mostly adds a couple functions to the
psycopg2 backend in the introspection module. The only big changes
that affect the mainline django code are in django.core.management.
I'm using my patches, so that's been tested through 3 schema updates
in production. As previo
I know the company line on the SOC Schema Evolution code is that it will
be integrated into the trunk after enough people have tested it, but I
think this creates a chicken and egg problem. People aren't going to use
it until it's in trunk and it won't be in trunk until enough people test
it.
Doe
If anyone wants to poke at our schema evolution code you should be
able to apply this patch attached.
It's mostly working. The bugs I know about are:
1) M2M fields can't be repointed at new tables properly
2) there's some weird quirk with modifying null and db_index at the
same time. i have to
On 12/13/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it have a realistic chance of being accepted into core if it's found
> to be bug free? Is it fully documented? Is the design controversial or
> does it follow a community consensus?
There was discussion about the general problem of sc
6 matches
Mail list logo
