On Mar 2, 2013, at 3:49 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > I'm with Aymeric: the current behavior is bad enough, and this is a > big enough improvement, and the backwards-incompatibility is minor > enough.
Right now, the only real example I've heard (there might be more is): 1. The ORM generates multiple updating operations for a single API-level operation. 2. The developer did nothing to manage their transaction model (no decorator, no middleware), but, 3. Is relying on Django to provide a transaction in this case. That situation does exist, but it does seem pretty edge-case-y. Does it exist in any case besides model inheritance? If not, could we have the ORM wrap those operations in a transaction in that particular case? -- -- Christophe Pettus x...@thebuild.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
