Hi list,
Responding to Jacob's message of yesterday, I worked a little more on this
issue, and brought my patch to a working state, tests included. This revealed
some issues with my approach, which I've documented on the patch.
I would like to see this resolved for 1.1, either way.
On Monday 09 March 2009, Shai Berger wrote:
> On Sunday 08 March 2009, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > Either solution to this problem is fairly acceptable at the moment (sans
> > timing information): we either essentially get rid of the "dirty"
> > concept [...or...] we document that if you're doing
> > manual SQL operations that change the transaction state, you have to
> > also set the dirty flag.
> >
> > At the moment I have a very slight lean towards the latter [...] there's
> > really nothing to do on the ticket: it's a three line change.
>
> It's a three-line change, if we are willing to accept one of the choices
> you outlined above. I think we can make a change that is not much more
> complex,
>
I'd have to take that back a little. While not Rocket Science, the patch
certainly isn't trivial. Still, I think the two solutions -- the one to keep
having dangling transactions, and the other to subtly change the
transactional behavior for all users -- are both bad choices, and I ask you
to reconsider.
I'll be happy to do the (still missing) documentation work, if there's any
positive feedback to this.
Thanks,
Shai.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9964
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
