> On 21 janv. 2016, at 07:24, Josh Smeaton wrote:
>
> I'm in favour of making the change, just call it out as a backwards
> compatibility.
If I understand correctly, Oracle users encountering this issue would just have
to adjust the field length?
That sounds
No they couldn't just change the field length as its already max for that
type. They would somehow have to change the type of the field but I don't
think that's something we expose.
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 at 19:00, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> > On 21 janv. 2016,
On Thursday 21 January 2016 09:59:49 Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> > On 21 janv. 2016, at 07:24, Josh Smeaton wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favour of making the change, just call it out as a backwards
> > compatibility.
>
> If I understand correctly, Oracle users encountering this
Hi All,
I'm leading a team of 7 students that are looking to contribute to Django
for a group project that will span the next 4 months. Our professor has
stated that we should try to work on features instead of bugs so I was
wondering what would be the best way to go about that. Should we
Hi Jason,
That sounds exciting. Feel free to ping me (timograham) in #django-dev IRC
to discuss. I'd highly advise to send pull requests as you work so you can
learn our contribution process, coding guidelines, etc. Also, I won't feel
so overwhelmed with a big influx of pull requests to review