On 2 March 2012 09:45, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Same reason any ticket stalls - it seems that nobody felt strongly
> enough about it to put the time into reviewing and thoroughly testing
> the patch and marking it Ready for Checkin. If you'd like to see it in
> (post 1.4 at this point, of course), feel
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Meshy wrote:
> Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
> unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
> will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
> better? Perhaps this ch
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:02:05 PM UTC-7, Alex_Gaynor wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Yo-Yo Ma
>> wrote:
>> > Without changing any of the existing functionality or settings in
>> Django,
>> > refactor the template
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:15:03 AM UTC-4, Meshy wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
> unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
> will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
> better
Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
better? Perhaps this change would be appropriate for django 2.0.
At the mo
