On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 1:48:09 AM UTC-8, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
>
> It seems there had been a little confusion as to exactly what the initial
> proposal was. I had assumed it was just about removing the `depth` argument
> but it was still possible to pass *no* arguments to get the implicit
It seems there had been a little confusion as to exactly what the initial
proposal was. I had assumed it was just about removing the `depth` argument
but it was still possible to pass *no* arguments to get the implicit
"follow everything" behaviour. In fact Luke was suggesting that we remove
th
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> > If anyone has any major objections to the deprecation of depth, you
> should
> > shout now. If there are no objections and people think it's ok to push
> this
> > deprecation in now,
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Marc Tamlyn wrote:
> If anyone has any major objections to the deprecation of depth, you should
> shout now. If there are no objections and people think it's ok to push this
> deprecation in now, then I'll get a patch done on Monday.
No objections here. Depth was a
Hi all,
The issue #16855 [1] tracks some unexpected behaviour in the chaining of
`Queryset.select_related`. It's been proving rather complex to get a patch
for this which works, mainly because of the complexity added by the depth
argument. It has been proposed (by Luke Plant) that depth be depr
