On 02/26/2015 08:41 AM, Carsten Fuchs wrote: > Hi all, > > Am 26.02.2015 um 13:54 schrieb Tim Graham: >> Yes, it's expected behavior. Please see the documentation on the topic: >> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/stable/topics/migrations/#historical-models >> > > I have not yet tried this, but won't squashing migrations as a side > effect also get us rid of dependencies of historical models?
Yes, squashmigrations is the right way to deal with this problem. If you have RunPython/RunSQL migrations that can also safely go away, you'll need to manually excise them before squashing in order to get a complete squash, since they are opaque to squashmigrations and won't be optimized across. See https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24109 Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" 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-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/54EF40B4.6020305%40oddbird.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
