On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:38 AM, J. Clifford Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[details snipped] > > > > Well I can still take your posted model file, simply add "class Admin: > > pass" to the models so I can dummy up some data in the admin, and then > > run your interactive session without error. But, I am using Python > > 2.5, not 2.3. Searching for problems like this in Django's tracker > > revealed this: > > > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3894 > > > > which looks pretty similar and mentions Python 2.3 specifically as a > > problem. It was closed as a dup of this: > > > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/1796 > > > > which has a looooooooooong history but ultimately seems to have been > > fixed by changeset 5919. Unfortunately since you are running 0.96 > > (tagged around revision 4810), you don't have that fix. Can you > > consider upgrading either to a later Python or the SVN version of > > Django? > > > > Karen > > Karen, > > Thanks for the pointer. I think that bug is the issue here. I'm not > sure if I can get trunk installed or not. It's not impossible, but it > will be a challenge, persuading the sysadmins. I'll give that a shot, > and if it doesn't work, I don't think it'll kill me to explicitly define > an association table with FKs back to each of the other tables. If I do > it in such a way that it uses the same table and column names as a m2m, > it should save me some work if we do use many to many later. > Note for test purposes you can simply check out the svn version of Django into your own space, alongside the code you are developing, and set your PYTHONPATH environment variable to point to it ahead of whatever is "officially installed" on the box. Then with the development server you can verify that the later version of Django does in fact fix the problem. That could then give you some concrete information to help convince the sysadmins to make the change. Note also that upgrading to the SVN version isn't hassle-free, if you've got a bunch of code written to run on 0.96. There have been a number of backwards-incompatible changes (unicode support and autoescaping are the biggies that come to mind), so if you've got an existing code base that mostly works fine with 0.96 you'll likely have some breakage that you'll need to fix before it runs properly on the SVN version. But these changes are all well-documented ( http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/BackwardsIncompatibleChanges), so it's pretty straightforward to migrate your code. If you are just starting out and don't have the worries of upgrading an old code base, I'd say the SVN version of Django is the way to go. Besides the two very big improvements I mentioned above there are hundreds of bug fixes and little improvements that have been made. For new code, the only thing you "gain" by starting out on 0.96 is a long list of known bugs that you don't have the fix for as opposed to the unknown/unfixed ones that exist in current SVN. I know for sysadmins unfamiliar with how Djanog operates that second list is a big red flag, but in practice the Django trunk is not riddled with show-stopper newly-introduced bugs. Any random checkout is likely to work as well or better than what is now a quite old frozen "official release". Karen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
