On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:13 PM, HenrikV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am working on #3011, making the User model overridable.
Ok - do you think this might have been useful information to include on your original query? > I have a > working patch, but > if I set the db_table on the User model, the queryset and syncdb > doesn't seem to agree > on what the m2m table should be called. > > As a sidenote there seems to a problem with certain combinations > db_table and app_name > for models with an abstract base class. I haven't isolated the problem > yet though. Well... lets think this through. Django has had m2m since day 1. Django has a large collection of unit tests that exercise m2m relations. They test all sorts of combinations of m2m and db_table combinations. You have been messing around with modifying the internals of Django. So, either: 1) Django has a fundamental problem with m2m tables that has gone unnoticed for 3 years 2) There is something wrong with your code Which do you think is more likely? Please note that I'm not saying that Django is flawless. However, I have a lot more confindence in Django that I have in a random "something seems to be wrong" comment that isn't backed up with a concrete example. Until you present a concrete example where vanilla Django fails, you're going to find that anyone with the ability to help you isn't going to be particularly helpful. 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
