Do we know exactly what "support for apps without migrations" would consist of at this point? I have that half-done code for replicating syncdb with the autodetector stuck onto the migration executor, but it's not especially speedy and would need some work to make it a sensible speed before it goes forward.
Alternately, we could modify the autodetector to have a "create only" mode that's more efficient or just write a new generator that is quick because it knows it's only making nonmigrated apps' migrations. Andrew On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Tim Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > With the alpha for 1.9 coming up in 6 weeks, we need to decide whether or > not to continue support for apps without migrations (currently in master no > tables are created for such apps (as the deprecation timeline says), but it > might be appropriate to add a warning or error message for this case if > things don't change). > > Is anyone sufficiently interested in continuing support for apps without > migrations to commit to completing it by the alpha? If not, do you consider > it a release blocker that I should spend time on? > > Related tickets: > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25144 - No way to create tables for > apps without migrations > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24919 - Add an option not to run > migrations when running tests > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24481 - Improve sqlmigrate to be > more flexible and allow bypassing migrations on disk > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24901 - makemigrations should > create empty migrations dir for any installed app without it > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24588 - Improve handling apps > without migrations while running migrate command. > > On Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 5:11:53 PM UTC-5, Markus Holtermann wrote: >> >> Creating in-memory migrations for all apps that don't have migration >> files seems to be an option to solve the dependency problem. This would >> even allow apps without migrations to depend on those with migrations. >> >> We have to consider though, that there are tens of apps and hundreds of >> models in our own test suite, and generating all migrations during start >> seems to be quite an expensive task. And I'm not even talking about the >> migration optimizer which probably needs to get a lot smarter if we take >> this road. >> >> syncdb, which leaves a developer with a database scheme that cannot be >> altered automatically, is something we should get rid of as soon as >> possible, especially since Django has a out-of-the-box migration system. >> >> /Markus >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 01:50:14PM -0800, Andrew Godwin wrote: >> >My main argument for removing them entirely was the dependency issues >> >between apps with and without migrations. Having syncdb use SchemaEditor >> is >> >a big step and one I'm happy we've got to, but the only advantage of >> >keeping syncdb is for the test suite and I'd rather we approach that >> more >> >as "migrations made and run at runtime as a special case" rather than >> >"syncdb". >> > >> >If nothing else, I'd like to see the end-developer-facing parts, like >> the >> >syncdb command itself, gone. >> > >> >Andrew >> > >> >On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Claude Paroz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Tim recently did a fabulous job of removing deprecated code for the >> >> future 1.9 on master. Thanks for that. >> >> >> >> However, one thing he removed was support for apps without migrations. >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/django/django/commit/7e8cf74dc74539f40f4cea53c1e8bba82791fcb6 >> >> >> >> Considering that we have to keep internal support for Django's own >> test >> >> suite anyway, I wonder if we should remove that support at all for >> >> "normal" projects. I think one of Andrew's motivation was not to have >> to >> >> keep two schema editing code bases. But now that the old syncdb also >> >> uses the new schema editor, I think that this argument doesn't stand. >> >> >> >> So what about keeping support for apps without migrations in the >> longer >> >> term. Of course, the fact that those apps cannot depend on migrated >> apps >> >> limits its use, but I think that for quick prototyping and initial >> >> developement, migrations could be more of a hindrance. Would you see >> >> major drawbacks with keeping this support? >> >> >> >> Opinions welcome. >> >> >> >> Claude >> >> -- >> >> www.2xlibre.net >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" 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/89839628-6b11-4c61-86ed-4d9a076e9e3d%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/89839628-6b11-4c61-86ed-4d9a076e9e3d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" 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/CAFwN1urojSqXkaDnjVdrPHrs5TKpQC-baz9TZLtvOZ_3UJ%2BM2Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
