On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> especially if it's something highly custom internal to a company where you
> don't have the time or team to do that stuff properly.
>
Thank you for highlighting this scenario. Unfortunately, this is usually
the case with my one-man projects
I certainly don't want to tread on anyone's toes - the idea will be that,
like in South currently, migrations will be enabled/disabled on a per-app
basis, so if you don't want them they won't muck stuff up. Alternatively,
we could let the other apps override syncdb.
I'm hoping, in fact, that addin
On 28/09/12 08:41, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Yeah, I think I mentioned it a couple of times at DjangoCon but perhaps
> not loudly enough - Jacob and I had a talk at DjangoCon EU where he said
> he wanted it all in core, and I tend to agree.
>
> Preston has had a look at what I'm doing/planning with A
Yeah, I think I mentioned it a couple of times at DjangoCon but perhaps not
loudly enough - Jacob and I had a talk at DjangoCon EU where he said he
wanted it all in core, and I tend to agree.
Preston has had a look at what I'm doing/planning with AppCache and
apparently it'll be compatable with wh
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> Have I missed part of the discussion here? At DjangoCon, South was
>> still going to exist (as the "smarts" part of the problem) -- has this
>> changed?
>
> Obviously nothi
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> Have I missed part of the discussion here? At DjangoCon, South was
> still going to exist (as the "smarts" part of the problem) -- has this
> changed?
Obviously nothing's really decided, but I've been asking Andrew to
push for getting
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> So, the patch [1] is looking alright, but after some consideration I think
> it's going to be best to leave this until just after the 1.5 branch has
> happened and then merge it in as part of the 1.6 cycle.
>
> My reasoning is thus:
>
> - Th
So, the patch [1] is looking alright, but after some consideration I think
it's going to be best to leave this until just after the 1.5 branch has
happened and then merge it in as part of the 1.6 cycle.
My reasoning is thus:
- The whole point of getting something into 1.5 was so I could build
mi