Deletion of objects with a GenericRelation(X) deletes unrelated X
objects with the same object_id!
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3215
This ticket needs developers focus sooner rather than later. The
implications of this patch mean it's not acceptable for this patch to
sit in the queue - it
On 1/22/07, SmileyChris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Deletion of objects with a GenericRelation(X) deletes unrelated X
> objects with the same object_id!
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3215
>
> This ticket needs developers focus sooner rather than later. The
> implications of this patch me
On 1/23/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could somebody provide some unit tests that isolate the problem? I've
> never mucked with the GenericForeignKey code -- perhaps Jacob or
> Russell could chime in here for the fix?
I've never really played with GenericRelations, so I don't
On 1/23/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Could somebody provide some unit tests that isolate the problem? I've
> > never mucked with the GenericForeignKey code -- perhaps Jacob or
> > Russell could chime in here for
On 1/23/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've just attached a unit test to the ticket. It seems to be the same
> issue described in #2749 and #3081. I think I understand the problem;
> the patch on #3081 is pretty much correct. I should have this sorted
> out by tonight.
>
O
On 1/23/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've just attached a unit test to the ticket. It seems to be the same
> > issue described in #2749 and #3081. I think I understand the problem;
> > the patch on #3081 is
Wow, I didn't even know those existed. Besides this bug, are these
considered stable?
Are there plans to document them?
I've got a data model that we may need to implement that could use just
this feature. If we start playing around with them and see how they
work I can try to help provide som
On 1/25/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My jetlag has worn off, so now I can see the obvious problem that I
> missed on Tuesday. I've checked in the fix as [4428].
It's not really a security issue, but would this be worth kicking out
an announcement/point release for? Generic
On 1/26/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/25/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My jetlag has worn off, so now I can see the obvious problem that I
> > missed on Tuesday. I've checked in the fix as [4428].
>
> It's not really a security issue, but would this
On 1/26/07, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wow, I didn't even know those existed. Besides this bug, are these
> considered stable?
Stable in operation, but not fully featured - they aren't represented
in the Admin view, and I don't know what form field would be (or
should be) automati
On 1/25/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, it would set a good precedent for the type of issue that
> would generate a point release (i.e., anything causing unexpected data
> loss). I'll leave the final decision in the RM's hands, but I
> certainly wouldn't object.
I ha
On 1/25/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the moment I'm leaning toward rolling 0.95.2 immediately after that
> goes in, but I'd like to hear opinions on it; with 0.96 probably
> coming up soon, I can come up with good arguments either way.
Nah, given that generic relations have n
On Jan 25, 10:35 pm, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and the
> small fraction of people using them probably all subscribe to this
> mailing list
If there's not 100% certainty, I'd argue that it deserves a new point
release. It just takes 1 person for this to bite and post a rant t
I think it is risky to assume that all potentially affected users will
see this information in this thread. I found it, but there was an
element of luck involved. I don't read this list religiously, and could
easily have missed it.
I don't know that you need to make a release for this fix, b
On 1/29/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know that you need to make a release for this fix, but I think you
> should alert people to it. There is a mailing list for announcing releases
> and security issues, right? You should send a message to that list
> announcing the p
2007/1/29, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 1/29/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know that you need to make a release for this fix, but I think you
> > should alert people to it. There is a mailing list for announcing releases
> > and security issues, right? Y
On 1/30/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm +1 on this option. Before making decision what about at least add
> a warning message on the documentation page?
This is kind of the point. Which documentation page? Generic relations
exist, but they aren't documented - specifically becaus
On 30/01/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/29/07, Ned Batchelder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know that you need to make a release for this fix, but I think you
> > should alert people to it. There is a mailing list for announcing releases
> > and security issues, r
2007/1/30, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 1/30/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm +1 on this option. Before making decision what about at least add
> > a warning message on the documentation page?
>
> This is kind of the point. Which documentation page? Generic re
19 matches
Mail list logo
