Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-10-12 Thread Andre Terra
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > especially if it's something highly custom internal to a company where you > don't have the time or team to do that stuff properly. > Thank you for highlighting this scenario. Unfortunately, this is usually the case

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-10-12 Thread Andrew Godwin
I certainly don't want to tread on anyone's toes - the idea will be that, like in South currently, migrations will be enabled/disabled on a per-app basis, so if you don't want them they won't muck stuff up. Alternatively, we could let the other apps override syncdb. I'm hoping, in fact, that

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-10-11 Thread Luke Plant
On 28/09/12 08:41, Andrew Godwin wrote: > Yeah, I think I mentioned it a couple of times at DjangoCon but perhaps > not loudly enough - Jacob and I had a talk at DjangoCon EU where he said > he wanted it all in core, and I tend to agree. > > Preston has had a look at what I'm doing/planning with

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-09-28 Thread Andrew Godwin
Yeah, I think I mentioned it a couple of times at DjangoCon but perhaps not loudly enough - Jacob and I had a talk at DjangoCon EU where he said he wanted it all in core, and I tend to agree. Preston has had a look at what I'm doing/planning with AppCache and apparently it'll be compatable with

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-09-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> Have I missed part of the discussion here? At DjangoCon, South was >> still going to exist (as the "smarts" part of the

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-09-27 Thread Jacob Kaplan-Moss
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Have I missed part of the discussion here? At DjangoCon, South was > still going to exist (as the "smarts" part of the problem) -- has this > changed? Obviously nothing's really decided, but I've been asking

Re: Schema Alteration update

2012-09-27 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > So, the patch [1] is looking alright, but after some consideration I think > it's going to be best to leave this until just after the 1.5 branch has > happened and then merge it in as part of the 1.6 cycle. > > My

Schema Alteration update

2012-09-27 Thread Andrew Godwin
So, the patch [1] is looking alright, but after some consideration I think it's going to be best to leave this until just after the 1.5 branch has happened and then merge it in as part of the 1.6 cycle. My reasoning is thus: - The whole point of getting something into 1.5 was so I could build