Just thought I'd chime in now I've had a chance to look over the current
proposal (I looked at the current one you have in the GSOC system):
- When you describe feeding things in from local_fields, are you
referring to that being the method by which you're planning to implement
things like syncdb?
- I'd like to see a bit more detail about how you plan to test the
code - specifically, there are some backend-specific tests you may need,
as well as some detailed introspection in order to make sure things have
applied correctly.
- Russ is correct about your models approach - as I've said before in
other places, the models API in Django is not designed with models as
moveable, dynamic objects. South has one approach to these sorts of
tests, but I'd love to see a cleaner suggestion.
- There's been some discussion on south-users about the benefits of a
column-based alteration API versus a field/model-based alteration API -
why have you picked a column-based one? If you plan to continue using
Django fields as type information (as South does), what potential issues
do you see there?
- Some more detail on your background would be nice - what's your
specific experience with the 3 main databases you'll be handling
(postgres, mysql, sqlite)? What was a "high voltage database migration"?
Sorry for the late feedback, I've been far too busy.
Andrew
--
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.
