Hi,
I'm not against reverting #23384 (I'm the commit author) because I admit it
can be debatable, but still I don't like that wrong arguments are given
against it.
The situation about multiple user settings file is absolutely not changed
by that patch. If you import from a parent settings file, it's still your
choice to either overwrite the dictionary or update it, no magics happen at
all at this stage.
The magics merge effect is only between global settings and user settings,
so you could define:
EMAIL = {'USE_SSL': True}
without clearing other EMAIL keys from the default global settings.
Carl, you mention several other arguments which I don't understand:
more verbosity in documentation, check warnings, and settings files, more
complex to work with in
settings-override scenarios.
You may look at the pull request https://github.com/django/django/pull/2836
to see if any of the above are confirmed or not in that scenario (email
settings).
Yes, it's a design choice to make, judging if a bit of "magic" merging
justifies or not having better logically-grouped settings. Keep also in
mind that the original use-case (apart from django-secure new settings) was
the addition of two new email-related settings (#20743).
Once again, I'm not advocating for dictionary settings, only for fare
debate :-)
Cheers,
Claude
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/ac4a18e8-6a82-48cf-bef3-cf3b33fe94ff%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
