And the auto-generated in-memory migrations should work for tests too, right?
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:34:23 PM UTC-4, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > > >> > An alternative would be to ignore migrations files, regenerate a fresh >> > set of migrations, and dump the corresponding SQL. >> >> I think this approach would be much preferable to using the totally >> separate legacy code path. Presented as a tool for debugging migrations >> issues, and with the appropriate documentation notes about RunSQL etc, I >> think it would be a useful addition. >> > > This is in fact what I was suggesting when I said "tie the autodetector > into the SQL writer directly in-memory". It would do 99% of what people > want, and more than the old one did. > > Andrew > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/dff453e5-fcb8-4476-b921-2fa9c01ac658%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
