On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 05:08 -0700, Vitaly Peressada wrote: > @Malcolm: > > I agree with you that there are some holes in code - it was a quick > hack to solve issue at hand. I did suspect that there should be some > effort to implement this feature and tickets quoted confirm that. It > is too bad that as of now it has not done yet even though tickets > appear to be 2 years old. Is there anything I could to help, please > let me know.
They've been open for two years because nobody has fixed them yet and we think it's worthwhile doing (plus they're not entirely trivial to fix, so that cuts down the number of people willing to put in the effort). In the interim we've closed, you know, a *few thousand* other tickets, so progress has definitely been made. I'll also note that parts of #5768 have been fixed, e.g., in r7230. Lots of those bigger items are multi-part projects that get fixed in a few stages. You could work on those tickets if you want to help. I've pointed out the difficulties in comment 4 on #5768. Whether we restrict values() to only allowing one multi-valued relation or, preferably, constructing the correct SQL for querying many multi-valued relations (making sure we only return 1 + n1 +n2 rows, not n1 * n2 rows, in the notation in that comment). The latter situation is best, but hard to implement. So start working on that if you want this solved. We aren't going to commit a hack to work around something when the real problem is known. If you get stuck, ask as many questions as you like on this list. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
