On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Brian Rosner<bros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Manuel Saelices wrote: > >> This ticket was marked by duplicate of #8500, but I think #8572 >> approach is better (better explicit than implicit). Ticket number is >> not important, but I think that functionality is easy to implement >> (with several strategies) and has no colateral effects, being >> backwards compatible. > > I am in agreement the approach in #8572 is best. This has something > that has bitten me on a few occasions and would like to get this fixed > in Django. If you are fired up about getting this in I would recommend > including documentation and tests and attaching it to #8500. > > Of course I welcome the thoughts of others too.
#8572 looks like a much better approach to me. I also agree that this is a problem worth addressing - anything that allows breaking the dependency on a hardcoded default is almost always good in my book. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
