#33647: bulk_update silently truncating values for size limited fields
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jerch | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Component: Database layer | Version: 4.0
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Carlton Gibson):
[https://groups.google.com/g/django-
developers/c/jIGj1KKuaDM/m/4EiKPV5XAgAJ Link to the mailing list thread]
Hi Jörg — thanks for the input here. Sorry you're feeling frustrated.
> Could it be that no one is actually interested in a revamped bulk_update
implementation in django? Or is django development known to have a very
slow pace / being in maintenance mode mostly?
So there's three points there:
* I suspect it's not **lots** of people who are directly vested, but there
are a number of regular contributors to the ORM (Simon included) and I'd
imagine this is a topic of interest, but, as you've already pointed out in
your mailing list post, there are several tradeoffs to consider, and it'll
need some thought. Folks have limit bandwidth: that doesn't entail no
interest. I hope that's clear.
* Django **does** have a slow pace. That's OK. After 16+ years, that's
proven to be one of its strengths. It's a big project, with a lot of
surface area, and (again) folks have limited bandwidth. It's one reason
why third-party packages, such as the one you've done, are a good way to
go, as they allow a faster pace, and a sandbox to work on issues.
* Despite the slow pace, Django is in anything but maintenance mode: you
need only look at the release notes over the last few major releases to
see that new features are constantly being worked on and delivered. If you
zoom-out from any particular issue, I contest, the development pace is
actually quite rapid for a project of Django's size and maturity (despite
being "slow" on the surface.)
We're currently heads-down working towards the feature freeze for Django
4.1 — there is no chance (really) of this getting addressed for that. That
leaves a realistic opportunity to discuss it for Django 4.2, and if you're
keen, and the technical questions can be resolved, there's no reason it
couldn't get in for that. If we miss that, then the next one... — Again
zooming out, it soon fades that it took x-cycles to get any particular
feature work completed.
Looking at the timestamps on the discussion here, not much time has passed
between comments. I'd suggest a little patience, and working on the third-
party implementation to resolve any outstanding issues in that time. If
it's **ready™** following up on the mailing list thread may be appropriate
to let folks know they can give it a try.
I hope that all makes sense, and helps anchor expectations.
[https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2014/05/07/the-truth-behind-open-source-
apps/ There's a nice comic here which I always try to keep in mind].
Kind Regards,
Carlton
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33647#comment:7>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/01070180649706a1-bab49e31-7fc3-40cd-bf5d-6d4f0304c409-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
