> (1) It's been closed twice; once each by Jacob and Adrian. Closing it or > applying both make some sense to me, so I'm not about to go any further > without some clarification.
The discussion regarding the closure and subsequent re-opening are documented here- http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/741ac793a9bf8459/d9bf516943a2e997?q=jws&rnum=1#d9bf516943a2e997 Jacob gave no reason for the second closure. I presume he was just weeding patches with no activity. > (3) The patch still needs some work. There is neither documentation nor > test cases with it, so if I was to sit down and try to resolve this, > it's still going to take a bit of time (not sure if documentation is > required or not, but that will take some thinking to work out, too). I think the previous discussion is comprehensive. Would summarizing the discussion in the ticket be more helpful? The lack of test cases is more convincing. > Again, my personal way of working is that I tend to prioritise patches > in my head with the ones that don't have workarounds or are core > functionality or very, very common use cases near the top of the list. > Easy or obviously correct fixes are next. Ticket #470 doesn't meet any > of those criteria for me. I'm sure we'll get to it eventually, but for > now not applying doesn't really have a huge impact on usability. No, It's not a show stopper, but there is activity coming up in the database backend area, and it would be easier to get this mainlined in before that code gets any more churn. It's more of an issue when when django shares the RDBMS with some other app that uses the tables directly. Why generate a schema that is only 95% complete, when the last bit can be had so cheaply? The patch is reasonably simple, adds only new functionality, degrades back to the previous behaviour gracefully if a particular backend is unsupported, and has low downside risk. A somewhat-less-compelling argument is the assertion that the generated sql should reflect the models whenever practical. There's a D.R.Y. argument that I already specified what I wanted in the models. It's morally wrong to specify it again. That's more abstract and philosophical. You might even call it 'opinionated'. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
