On 12/2/07, J. Clifford Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One missing feature, which would be very helpful for our project is the > ability to specify column names in the ManyToManyField definitions. > There is a ticket (#785) that addresses this issue, with an attached > patch. > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/785
By a wonderful coincidence of timing, you may have seen that Jacob closed ticket #785 in favour of #6095 very soon after you posted this message. The syntax proposed in #6095 has been suggested a few times in the past (I've put a relevant link in the comments for that ticket). There are some complexities that need to be negotiated, but there has historically been a lot of support for the feature described in #6095 (which is a superset of the original issue in #785). > This is functionality that would be very useful for me, and I'd be > willing to put in work to see it get into the trunk, but I'm not sure > what the next step would be. I've created an account, and I'm happy to > claim the ticket, but I'm not sure what to do to get things moving > toward inclusion. This is obviously moot given that the ticket has been closed. However, regardless of the ticket, the general process goes something like: 1) Download the patch, install it and test it on your install 2) Audit the code to make sure that it is well written and is consistent with Django style 3) If the ticket doesn't have tests or documentation, write them 4) Post a message to Django Developers requesting that the ticket be reviewed Although most people concentrate on the first two items, it's actually items 3 and 4 that are most important. Patches _will not_ be applied without documentation and tests, and unless a core developer particularly wants a feature, they're not going to write the documentation themselves. If you want a ticket included, these items are mandatory. Tickets also require advocacy. There are a lot of open tickets, so if you particularly want your ticket to be looked at, you need to act as an advocate for it. This means attempting to start discussions on Django-developers that build the momentum around getting your ticket included - asking for reviews, comments, etc. Of course, there is a fine line between advocacy and being annoying - posting a 'why hasn't it been included yet' message every day for a week will earn you no friends. Time to polish up those political skills :-) > One proposal for revision to the patch, that I'd like to toss out for > discussion: > > It currently proposes adding two optional attributes: db_self_column and > db_related_column, for specifying the names of the two foreign key > fields in the many to many table. Should we also add a third attribute, > perhaps called db_key_column or db_pk_column, for specifying the name of > the primary key column? This issue would also be resolved with the syntax proposed in #6095; as a bonus, it doesn't require introducing a whole lot of new keywords to the m2m relationship definition. However, obviously, it requires someone to write a patch to implement the proposed syntax. Volunteers are welcome. :-) Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
