On Nov 6, 9:17 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ...
> So anybody who's staying away from the GIS branch because of some
> perception that it's less stable than trunk and they can do a better job
> locally should re-evaluate. Trunk maintainers (well, at least one of
> them) are
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:57 -0800, Justin Bronn wrote:
> As Karen noted, I last merged on 10/26 to r6613 -- thus, the latest
> GeoDjango is more up-to-date than your latest checkout of trunk
> (r5988).
>
> > If the trunk and GeoDjango AREN'T currently compatible, would it be
> > possible for us
As Karen noted, I last merged on 10/26 to r6613 -- thus, the latest
GeoDjango is more up-to-date than your latest checkout of trunk
(r5988).
> If the trunk and GeoDjango AREN'T currently compatible, would it be
> possible for us to add geometry columns AFTER a syncdb creates the
> "standard"
I was in a similar situation a few months ago. The GeoDjango branch
api is really handy and I was hoping to use it on some models that
were sitting in a 0.96 release. We definitely couldn't go with the
unstable branch for our production environment so I ended up just
writing a few custom sql
On 11/5/07, Karen Tracey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>You can check the branch log:
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/log/django/branches/gis
>
> to see how current it is with respect to trunk. Look for the most recent
> log message that starts "Merged revisions". In this case gis was
On 11/5/07, Hancock, David (DHANCOCK) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We're using the Django trunk (r5988), but are about to dive into adding
> some PostGIS geometry columns to a few of our models. It appears that
> GeoDjango is its own branch--has anyone got advice about whether we can use
> it
6 matches
Mail list logo
