On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> wrote: [...]
> I am not sure whether this should happen as a separate step or not. In > an ideal world, we would have a longer username field. In the real > world, we have to balance the benefit against the cost, and requiring a > schema migration from practically every Django installation on the > planet would IMO be the most significant backwards-incompatible change > Django has ever shipped, at least since Django 1.0. It is not at all > clear to me that the status quo, bad as it is, is worse than this cure. > I can't understand how bad is a database schema change. Almost all web site/applications need to change they database schema. Ok, in some cases there are people that don't update their databases, but I think this cases aren't willing to update their version of software as well. If the installed a web site/app is too small to be afraid to update, the database change will be fast enough to cause a minimal downtime. If the installed a web site/app is too big, the sysadmin/devops already know how to couple with database schema changes. And it's likely that they have a test/staging/validation environment to analyse the changes before production. This current limitation doesn't bother me, but all this concerned about database schema change does. :-) Regards, -- Luciano Pacheco blog.lucmult.com.br -- 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.
