On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <[email protected] > wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, bendavis78<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This issue has been up with a patch for quite awhile, and wanted to > > get some feedback from some devs on this. The fix is pretty simple, > > and seems to work ok for me. > > > > Here's my thoughts on it: When I specify ordering with multiple > > fields on my Model or my ModelAdmin, the changelist should respect > > that ordering by default. If the user changes the ordering using the > > column headers, then it should use that ordering on the single field. > > I don't I see why it should only be one or the other. > > > > I know there's another discussion going on about adding multiple field > > ordering to the UI, but that's a much bigger change. Is there any > > reason why this can't make it into trunk in the meantime? > > There are at least 3 reasons: > > 1) When you make a small change that fixes 50% of the problem, you > remove 90% of the incentive to fix the problem properly. > > 2) Implementing, reviewing, and committing a patch takes time. Time > spent fixing a small version of the problem is time that could have > been spent fixing the big problem. > > 3) Sometimes (although probably not in this case) implementing a > partial solution can box us into a corner regarding potential > solutions to the big problem. By implementing a partial solution, we > introduce something that we need to maintain for backwards > compatibility purposes. > > The only real reason to make an exception is if the small change will > prevent data loss, or if the status-quo is fundamentally unusable. In > these cases, it makes sense to implement a partial solution in the > interests of correcting the breakage. However, this classification > doesn't apply here. The current ordering limitations are an annoyance, > but not a critical failing. > > I submitted a more thorough patch not too long ago but it needs regression tests. I'm not sure how exactly to test something like this. http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11695 Any thoughts? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
