Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-02 Thread Aymeric Augustin
On 2 mars 2014, at 09:59, Josh Smeaton wrote: > Is there anyway of indicating that a patch needs a review? Or is simply > setting "ready for checkin" a good enough signal? "Ready for checkin" means that you have reviewed the patch and you think it's complete and

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-02 Thread Josh Smeaton
Good points all. Looking more closely at Trac, the combinations of "has patch" "patch needs improvement" and "ready for checkin" fields should cover the status of PRs. I'll try to set some time aside to go through the PRs and check that the status in Trac matches. Though thinking about it,

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-02 Thread Aymeric Augustin
On 2 mars 2014, at 02:40, Josh Smeaton wrote: > At the very least it might be a good middle ground to tag PRs with "Requires > Work" or "Not Ready", so they can be easily filtered out from "active" PRs. > On the other hand, there could be a strange mix of Trac and the

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread Josh Smeaton
On Sunday, 2 March 2014 03:56:13 UTC+11, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > > On 1 mars 2014, at 13:16, Christian Schmitt > > wrote: > > > I mean some pull requests are open since two years. Why don’t you close > them, when they won’t apply anymore? > > Because it feels

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread anubhav joshi
This is now fixed in bb2ca9f . PR : #2381 Regards, Anubhav Joshi IIT Patna -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread Aymeric Augustin
On 1 mars 2014, at 13:16, Christian Schmitt wrote: > I mean some pull requests are open since two years. Why don't you close them, > when they won't apply anymore? Because it feels aggressive to the people who submitted the pull requests. > It looks like no Core

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread Florian Apolloner
Hi, there is no need to mail django-developers when you open a PR -- we do monitor the relevant lists. Cheers, Florian -- 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,

index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread anubhav joshi
"For convenience, unique_together can be a single tuple when dealing with a single set of fields" This convinience is missing in index_together: I have opened a PR, please see: https://github.com/django/django/pull/2381 Regards, Anubhav Joshi IIT Patna -- You received this message because

Re: index_together should also have the same convinience as unique_together

2014-03-01 Thread anubhav joshi
Related : https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22172 -- 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