On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 13:18 +0100, Gregor Kling wrote: [...] > Generally i do agree with the *usefulness* of not breaking compatibiltiy. > But on the other hand, I think that correcting this weird handling of IP > addresses would legitimate the cut. > Because the handling of IP addresses is not that intrinsic, like for > example the orm, it should be possible to cope with the change, > and to get rid of this ward.
Right now we have an IPAddress field. People are using it. You *cannot* break their code and requiring the database field to be changed does just that. So, no. This would have to be a differently named field. We might well deprecate the existing version, but breaking existing code just because it's "neat" is not an option. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
