On 2/27/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [on reverting [4610]]: > I'm -1 on this. Serialization and fixtures are near useless if you > can't do forward references. [4610] introduces a test for forward > references, and fixes a problem with Postgres. [4610] doesn't > introduce any new functionality or break an existing implementation > for MySQL - it just introduces a test that reveals a problem that has > always been there.
Yeah, as I look into it more, I agree. > An intermediate option would be to revert/comment out the test as an > interim measure. This is the 'head in the sand' approach, but it would > let the test suite pass for MySQL. Either way, the problem/limitations > with MySQL needs to be mentioned in the documentation (both > serialization and fixtures). I know it's "head in the sand", but this is the approach I'd like to take. From talking to people here -- the creator of MySQLdb, among others -- I'm afraid there isn't a way to get MySQL to have the deferrable stuff :( We don't have to comment it out, though; just don't run that particular test under MySQL. We can very clearly warn that if using serialization with MySQL you have to be careful about the order of your objects. Right now #2333 is all that 0.96 is waiting on (I *really* want 0.96 to have good testing tools!), so my suggestion is that we check it in with the test skipped for MySQL, write the doc warning, and then continue to investigate improvements after we get the release out the door. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
