On 11/2/06, wam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to propose that this decision be reconsidered. I hope this > isn't too much of a paraphrase, but it seems that the resolution of 443 > boiled down that 0000-00-00 time/date stamps are a MySQL botch and not > something Django should work around. The thing is, if Django claims to > support legacy databases and also claims to support MySQL, then it has > to be able to handle in a reasonable manner databases which for one > reason or another already includes "zero-" time/datestamps.
Hi William, I've come to agree with you -- Django should handle this, and I like the latest patch in ticket 2763. I'm holding off on committing, though, because the Django/Oracle sprint is happening right now, and they're heavily refactoring that general area of the code. Let's check it in after they're done with the Oracle stuff. Thanks for bringing this up. Adrian -- Adrian Holovaty holovaty.com | djangoproject.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
