On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Ben Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 24 Mar 2008, at 20:48, Rob Hudson wrote: > > > > On 3/24/08, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Ben Firshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> Would proposing a complete replacement be a tad too controversial > >>> for a GSoC > >>> project? > >> > >> > >> Yes. It also wouldn't succeed as a project, because it's the Google > >> *Summer* of Code, not the Google Several Years of Code. > > > > And it sounds like 'empty' and 'brosner' are making good headway on > > it... > > http://blog.michaeltrier.com/2008/3/21/django-sqlalchemy > > > > Yes, but that is intended as purely a separate plugin, not as > something part of Django. The code is there, it would just be a matter > of figuring out the logistics (and politics!) of working it into the > official distribution. >
You might want to go read some of the old threads on this list about the branch. IIRC, with queary-set refactor coming the core is not likely to ever include support for an sqlalchemy backend. The core devs have indicated that if and when is matures, it will remain a third party plugin. At most it could be distributed as a contrib app (or similar) with the distribution. Again, this is my recollection, so I could be a little off. The archives should shed more light in that. -- ---- Waylan Limberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
