I posted a message on django-developers since I think that is a more
common place for discussions to changes in django itself and Russ McGee
responded there:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/4cbc121bba0c134e
Here is the tail end of that response. I suggest f
If nobody want's to champion the code, I can volunteer ~3-5 hours a
week to work on this stuff. My own team needs schema evolution in the
long run anyway - so it's well worth my time to make sure this
eventually gets back to trunk.
I can devote about the same time to it perhaps a bit more in
On 29-Dec-06, at 9:22 AM, Matthew Flanagan wrote:
Victor, have you got a ticket open with your patch? It would be worth
opening one so that other people could try it out while you are
waiting for commit access to be granted.
victor i would suggest you directly mail jacob kaplan-moss with you
On 28/12/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-12-22, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, sorry for the long delay in replying. Holiday season and work
> craziness is getting in the way of writing free software - which is
> really the fun part isn't it? ;)
:-)
> It's
On 2006-12-22, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi, sorry for the long delay in replying. Holiday season and work
> craziness is getting in the way of writing free software - which is
> really the fun part isn't it? ;)
:-)
> It's a little different, but barely.
>
> The current codebase
Hi, sorry for the long delay in replying. Holiday season and work
craziness is getting in the way of writing free software - which is
really the fun part isn't it? ;)
On 12/17/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ways in which my schema evolution code sucks:
> 1) converting the dat
On 2006-12-11, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've got a rough version of schema evolution working now.
>
> The basic implementation is what the SoC project was trying to do.
[...]
> I honestly think it's a *bad* solution to the problem. I've been
> looking at sqlalchemy and the 'migr
On 2006-12-17, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Test coverage is ~44 test cases. There are currently 2 known problems
> in the code from a 'correctness' standpoint, and there is a ton of
> refactoring that needs to be done before it should be considered for
> merging into the trunk.
I se
On 2006-12-15, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either way, the ultimate goal would be to convince Adrian that the
> branch is stable, get him to take a look at it, and merge the branch
> into the trunk. Adrian is pretty busy, so I'm guessing he would be
> looking for some communi
On 2006-12-17, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> FYI - the schema evolution code submitted from the SoC project doesn't
> work, so keeping it up to date is a moot point. There have been
> several posts from people trying to use it where the SoC version of
> the schema evolution code just h
FYI - the schema evolution code submitted from the SoC project doesn't
work, so keeping it up to date is a moot point. There have been
several posts from people trying to use it where the SoC version of
the schema evolution code just halts.
The implementation in my patch is basically a complete
On 12/15/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Assuming that the implementation matches the proposal, I would say
> > there is a realistic chance of it getting accepted into core. However,
> > this would require that the implementation is up to date, and bug free
> > (including tests t
On 2006-12-14, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/13/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Does it have a realistic chance of being accepted into core if it's found
>> to be bug free? Is it fully documented? Is the design controversial or
>> does it follow a comm
On 2006-12-14, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The patch I previous sent in mostly adds a couple functions to the
> psycopg2 backend in the introspection module. The only big changes
> that affect the mainline django code are in django.core.management.
>
> I'm using my patches, so that's
The patch I previous sent in mostly adds a couple functions to the
psycopg2 backend in the introspection module. The only big changes
that affect the mainline django code are in django.core.management.
I'm using my patches, so that's been tested through 3 schema updates
in production. As previo
I know the company line on the SOC Schema Evolution code is that it will
be integrated into the trunk after enough people have tested it, but I
think this creates a chicken and egg problem. People aren't going to use
it until it's in trunk and it won't be in trunk until enough people test
it.
Doe
If anyone wants to poke at our schema evolution code you should be
able to apply this patch attached.
It's mostly working. The bugs I know about are:
1) M2M fields can't be repointed at new tables properly
2) there's some weird quirk with modifying null and db_index at the
same time. i have to
On 12/13/06, Steve Hutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does it have a realistic chance of being accepted into core if it's found
> to be bug free? Is it fully documented? Is the design controversial or
> does it follow a community consensus?
There was discussion about the general problem of sc
On 2006-12-11, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> I've got a rough version of schema evolution working now.
>
> The basic implementation is what the SoC project was trying to do.
[...]
> On 12/3/06, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> The behaviour you are seek
On 12/10/06, Victor Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Russ,
>
> I've got a rough version of schema evolution working now.
...
> I honestly think it's a *bad* solution to the problem. I've been
> looking at sqlalchemy and the 'migrate' project :
The attached file is in no way a complete soluti
20 matches
Mail list logo
