Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
better? Perhaps this change would be appropriate for django 2.0.
At the mo
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:15:03 AM UTC-4, Meshy wrote:
>
> Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
> unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
> will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
> better
On Sunday, June 24, 2012 3:02:05 PM UTC-7, Alex_Gaynor wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Yo-Yo Ma
>> wrote:
>> > Without changing any of the existing functionality or settings in
>> Django,
>> > refactor the template
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Meshy wrote:
> Perhaps it's just me, but I've very rarely wanted a SlugField that wasn't
> unique. Would this not be a sensible default? I realise that a lot of apps
> will rely upon this default, but objectively speaking would this not be
> better? Perhaps this ch
On 2 March 2012 09:45, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Same reason any ticket stalls - it seems that nobody felt strongly
> enough about it to put the time into reviewing and thoroughly testing
> the patch and marking it Ready for Checkin. If you'd like to see it in
> (post 1.4 at this point, of course), feel
