Bypassing 1.7+ migrations

Hello! I'm using Django as a part of bigger stack where I'm using external tool to manage database migrations. After migration to Django 1.7 I'm encouraged at every runserver command to execute some migrations, which may blow my databases. I want to bypass Django migrations to prevent any

Re: Bypassing 1.7+ migrations

Hi Marcin, If you're using an external tool to manage schemas of models, just set managed=False on the models and Django will stop trying to change their schemas (including stopping making migrations for them). Andrew On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Marcin Nowak

Re: Bypassing 1.7+ migrations

Hi Andrew, Thanks for a reply. But as I've mentioned above I can't set managed=False on models delivered from external apps like django.contrib.auth, django.contrib.sessions, and many more. Forking them is not an option. I think that bypassing migrations should be possible via some setting.

Re: Bypassing 1.7+ migrations

Hi Marcin, You can't bypass migrations as much as you can't bypass syncdb; that is, the commands are separate and you can choose not to run them (or just delete the migration files). As far as I can tell your only issue is the runserver warning that you have unmigrated changes, which there's

Re: Bypassing 1.7+ migrations

Hey Marcin, Andrew, setting manager=False wouldn't work either, as the migrations for those models still need to exist. I probably have references to them which makes them a requirement for FKs in migrations. Unmanaged models behave exactly the same as managed models in migrations, with one

#23996 Allow AlterOrderWithRespectTo to order existing data

Hello all, I just grabbed this ticket, but then I noticed in pull request #3735 that we don't have a consensus as to whether this feature should be added. Since I'm new around here, I'd like to ask everyone's opinion on whether we should move forward on this. I can implement it within a few

Re: #23996 Allow AlterOrderWithRespectTo to order existing data

Hi Mike, Thanks for grabbing it. I'd suggest to wait for the patch for #23983 being merged and than work on the updated master branch. From my point of view, the pull-request shouldn't add this new feature, as it would be backported to 1.7 which isn't covered by the backporting guidelines.

ANN: Django website redesign launched

Hi everyone, We're incredibly proud to share with you the new design of the Django website, the documentation and the issue tracker. This is a long time coming and we couldn't be happier to finally ship it :) As you can imagine, there will be bugs, so please bear with us and report issues to

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Looks great. Thanks. Will this same look apply to the admin backend? -bobby > On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We're incredibly proud to share with you the new design of the Django > website, the documentation and the issue tracker.

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Looks great! Just surfing around website and it's changed. Cool! :D среда, 17 декабря 2014 г., 0:09:55 UTC+8 пользователь Jannis Leidel написал: > > Hi everyone, > > We're incredibly proud to share with you the new design of the Django > website, the documentation and the issue tracker. > >

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Thats a Fantastic feel Ramesh On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Bobby Mozumder wrote: > > Looks great. Thanks. > > Will this same look apply to the admin backend? > > -bobby > > > > On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jannis Leidel wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, >

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

It looks great. Awesome work, everyone involved! Jannis/Russ -- y'all mentioned a style guide in the blog post, but I don't see one in the docs. Is that available somewhere? -T --- Travis Swicegood 512-693-7051 | @tswicegood (most everywhere) On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM, ramesh naidu

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Awesome work On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Travis Swicegood wrote: > > It looks great. Awesome work, everyone involved! > > Jannis/Russ -- y'all mentioned a style guide in the blog post, but I don't > see one in the docs. Is that available somewhere? > > -T > --- >

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Really nice! Great job! On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 5:56:41 PM Carlos Aguilar wrote: > Awesome work > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Travis Swicegood > wrote: >> >> It looks great. Awesome work, everyone involved! >> >> Jannis/Russ -- y'all mentioned

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

> On 16 Dec 2014, at 17:45, Travis Swicegood wrote: > > It looks great. Awesome work, everyone involved! > > Jannis/Russ -- y'all mentioned a style guide in the blog post, but I don't > see one in the docs. Is that available somewhere? Yeah, it's semi-public right now

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

> On 16 Dec 2014, at 17:17, Bobby Mozumder wrote: > > Looks great. Thanks. > > Will this same look apply to the admin backend? Very unlikely, this was about redesigning the public Django websites. Jannis >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jannis Leidel

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

> On 16 Dec 2014, at 20:00, Torsten Bronger > wrote: > > Hallöchen! > > Jannis Leidel writes: > >> We're incredibly proud to share with you the new design of the >> Django website, the documentation and the issue tracker. > > It's certainly beautiful but may I

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Somehow I hate it. The website is the worst website I've seen since a long time. The contrast is really aweful. The issue Tracker got unusable due to the colors that aren't focused on readability. Overall it looks like a mess, just to have a new design. Doesn't look like a designer or a graphic

Re: ANN: Django website redesign launched

Hi Christian, While I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, your email frankly makes you sound like an jerk, and that tone is not appropriate for this list. You've not substantiated any of your claims, other than that it your personal preference. If you'd like to make specific, *actionable*

Re: A case for CASE expressions and bulk_update

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 18:23:29 UTC+11, Michał Modzelewski wrote: > > Sure. I was planning to work on it myself, but wanted to discuss API, > passing in output_fields, and casting results first. > I started with 2 classes because I only needed SimpleCase first to > implement the

annotate() and generic relations

Hi everyone, First, there was ticket #10461[1] -- a complaint that annotate doesn't work well with generic relations. Then, it was documented[2] as not working. But then, people continued looking at the ticket, and in the end, it was declared as fixed and a test was added[3]. But deeper

Re: A case for CASE expressions and bulk_update

Unlike in previous release cycles, we are going to try a complete feature freeze at alpha. The details are outlined here: https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Version1.8Roadmap On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:01:23 PM UTC-5, Josh Smeaton wrote: > > On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 18:23:29 UTC+11,

Re: annotate() and generic relations

I admit I don't fully understand how generic relations work (I try not to use them in my projects), but I would think we should be able to make annotations work properly with them. Now that aggregates are based internally on F() objects, we should be able to special case F() for generic

Re: A case for CASE expressions and bulk_update

Thanks Tim, exactly what I was after. I linked to the wiki but obviously didn't read it all :/ Michal, do you think you'll be able to pull Case expressions together by the first or early second week of January to allow for review and changes? Cheers On Wednesday, 17 December 2014 12:28:53

Re: #23996 Allow AlterOrderWithRespectTo to order existing data

Will do, thanks. If we haven't gotten the go-ahead before the 22nd I'll un-assign it before I go on vacation. On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:58:08 AM UTC-7, Markus Holtermann wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for grabbing it. I'd suggest to wait for the patch for #23983 being > merged and than

Re: annotate() and generic relations

On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 03:12 +0200, Shai Berger wrote: > > But deeper checking[4] finds that the > annotation does not do the intuitive thing -- at least when aggregating over > the related objects themselves (rather than fields on them), the field it > uses > to aggregate on is the relation