On 1/6/06, Joseph Kocherhans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now that I think about it a little more I agree that core should be split > into: > > django.contrib.sessions > django.contrib.sites
Sounds good. > If no one is using packages I'll just drop it. This is a bit easier said than done...The content-types table depends on it. How about splitting this patch into several stages -- * Move sessions from core to django.contrib.sessions (and change dependencies) * Remove Package model (and dependencies on it) * Move sites from core to django.contrib.sites (and change dependencies) * Move auth to django.contrib.admin (and change dependencies) * Move contenttypes to django.contrib.contenttypes (and change dependencies) * Change django-admin init to install sites, auth, sessions, contenttypes * Add django-admin init-minimal What did I miss? Because this is a multi-step change, and it's much more manageable (and more easily understood) for commits to be as narrowly-focused as possible, would you be interested in commit access on the magic-removal branch? Let me know, and I can send you information privately. > contenttypes feels pretty core to me. I guess django doesn't really > depend on it though. (although many apps do.) I think contenttypes > should it go in django.contrib.core? Any preferences? Let's do django.contrib.contenttypes. The only parts that depend on it are the admin log and any bits that relate an object to another object + content type (such as django.contrib.comments, in which a comment is related to a content_type_id and object_id). > Also, should the table names stay the same? My vote is for changing > them, and updating BackwardsIncompatibleChanges with insructions on > how to rename them. I agree -- the table names should be changed. -- Adrian Holovaty holovaty.com | djangoproject.com | chicagocrime.org
