Hi David, and thanks. The code is already up there in the tarball, but
I'll get the repo posted ASAP. I noticed pretty much everyone that
visits the Google Code site goes straight to Browse Source (duh! of
course :) and sees nothing, since the repo isn't there...
As for the libraries, yes and no.
On 11 Kvě, 15:17, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Again, no argument here. Care to contribute a fix? :-)
At least I'd like, because of working evolutions are our vital
interests...
This is the reason I opened a discussion here, whether it is safe:
- set kwargs['unique'] = Fa
2008/5/11 Peter Melvyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 11 Kvě, 11:25, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Django has made a subtle change to the way a OneToOne field definition is
> interpreted.
> > This change makes sense, and is documented as being backwards incompatible.
>
On 11 Kvě, 11:25, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Django has made a subtle change to the way a OneToOne field definition is
> interpreted.
> This change makes sense, and is documented as being backwards incompatible.
Yes, I agree and respect it. OTOH, this is no reason to ge
Stefan,
It looks really promising but it's really hard to evaluate it without
any code (or detailled examples). I can't wait for the ready-for-
release time :)
Is there any reason that you don't use any existing lib (rdflib,
librdf, rdfalchemy, etc)?
Anyway, let me know if I can help, I'd ju
2008/5/11 Peter Melvyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 10 Kvě, 18:06, "Karen Tracey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The concern is Django-Evolution, because it seems that DB generated
> prior/post 1:1 refactoring is different, more
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-evolution/browse_frm/thread/324
On 10 Kvě, 18:06, "Karen Tracey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Setting kwargs['unique'] = False in OneToOneField constructor
> > supresses this, but I don know if there are no other dependencies...
>
> Is the UNIQUE causing a problem?
In conjuction with primary key 'per se' probably not. At le
