On 25/11/14 16:23, Markus Holtermann wrote:
> Hey Luke,
>
> It would be interesting to see why A.1 and B.1 depend on each other. If
> there are e.g. FK constraints pointing to models in the other app the
> autodetector should end up with e.g. A.1 <-- B.1 <-- B.2 <-- A.2 (or
> optimized A.1 <--
Le 26 nov. 2014 à 01:51, Nick Phillips a écrit :
>
> I'd suggest considering implementing
> something to generate a man page from whatever you wish the "canonical"
> source of the information to be.
The canonical source of information is:
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 16:44 -0800, Tim Graham wrote:
> I raised the issue in #23903 and Aymeric mentioned that it may be
> useful for downstream packagers, e.g. Debian. I installed
> python-django via apt-get on Ubuntu 14.04 and confirmed the existence
> of the man page. I'd like to remove it
Danilo Bargen has done some work to expand the types of URLs accepted by
URLValidator. His patch adds support for IPv6 addresses, unicode domains,
and URLs containing authentication data. This has increased the complexity
of the regular expression quite a bit and I would appreciate if any
So one option as you suggest Carl, is to pass a hard coded string into the
Operation when it's instantiated in the user's migration file. I've taken a
similar approach, starting one level lower, injecting the migration name
into database_forwards methods.
Hi Luke,
That was already a fix for infinite looping on the previous iteration that
I committed at the DUTH sprints, but your fix looks more understandable and
cleaner, so I say commit it for sure.
As for backporting - I think we should, as this is potentially a crash bug
(though not a data loss
Hey Luke,
It would be interesting to see why A.1 and B.1 depend on each other. If
there are e.g. FK constraints pointing to models in the other app the
autodetector should end up with e.g. A.1 <-- B.1 <-- B.2 <-- A.2 (or
optimized A.1 <-- B.1 <-- A.2), in which case you wouldn't end up with a
I came across a bug with an infinite loop in migration dependency
searching code. This is fixed here:
https://github.com/django/django/commit/ff3d746e8d8e8fbe6de287bd0f4c3a9fa23c18dc
(another person reviewing it would be good, though I think it is correct).
My question is, should we backport
On Monday, November 24, 2014 10:05:47 PM UTC+1, Rick van Hattem wrote:
>
> My goal was simply to move the Django project forward but it seems the
> problems I've encountered in the field are too uncommon for most other
> developers to care or understand.
>
Oh, I can assure you that we care