On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Rob Madole wrote:
>
> Hmm. I just spent some time looking at #11828, and I don't think the
> "syncing one db at a time" will work. The first problem this causes
> is with anything that subscribes to the post sync signal. Content
> type does this, so it can cre
Hmm. I just spent some time looking at #11828, and I don't think the
"syncing one db at a time" will work. The first problem this causes
is with anything that subscribes to the post sync signal. Content
type does this, so it can create permissions. If we sync one db at a
time, I don't see how
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Joseph Kocherhans
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, Russ, Joseph Kocherhans, and I discussed this at the DjangoCon
>> sprints and our conclusion was to have syncdb only sync a single table
>> at a time, and to take a --
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> FWIW, Russ, Joseph Kocherhans, and I discussed this at the DjangoCon
> sprints and our conclusion was to have syncdb only sync a single table
> at a time, and to take a --exclude flag (or was it --include?) to
> specify what models should b
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM, JL wrote:
>
> Russell Said:
>
> "I'm yet to be convinced that `Meta: using` is actually a good thing.
> IMHO, it's the very model of a setting that makes it impossible to
> re-use your application. The setting will probably survive into the
> final version, but I
Russell Said:
"I'm yet to be convinced that `Meta: using` is actually a good thing.
IMHO, it's the very model of a setting that makes it impossible to
re-use your application. The setting will probably survive into the
final version, but I suspect we need a much better mechanism than
`Meta: using
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Craig Kimerer wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Craig Kimerer
>> wrote:
>> > I've spent a little time using this branch and looking at the
>> > possibility of
>> > using it with my projec
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Craig Kimerer
> wrote:
> > I've spent a little time using this branch and looking at the possibility
> of
> > using it with my project. Below is a short list of problems and ponies
> that
> > I have enc
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Craig Kimerer wrote:
> I've spent a little time using this branch and looking at the possibility of
> using it with my project. Below is a short list of problems and ponies that
> I have encountered (or want).
>
> 1. It'd be awesome if we could mark certain databas
I've spent a little time using this branch and looking at the possibility of
using it with my project. Below is a short list of problems and ponies that
I have encountered (or want).
1. It'd be awesome if we could mark certain databases as slaves. Inserts /
deletes / creates / drops would only r
So over the weekend I've been thinking about the problem of the two
potential use cases for following relationship fields in Django
models: 1) All (or most) models exist on every db instance and the
data is sharded somehow or 2) Different models exist on different db
instances but all data for a p
Jon thanks for taking the time to give us some of your thoughts on the
API. Hearing how people feel about APIs as they are developed is
always a huge boon.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:54 PM, JL wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Thanks so much for the effort you've put into this. We've begun using
> your co
Hi Alex,
Thanks so much for the effort you've put into this. We've begun using
your code relatively extensively at my work. For what it's worth,
we're an enterprise Java shop that offers a software as a service
product to over 400 customers that are some of the biggest retailers
and manufacture
Hey all,
It seems GSOC has finally come to a close and so I'm giving my final
status update as a part of GSOC (but I'm not going anywhere!). When
we last left off I had just gotten Oracle support working, however
after reviewing with Russ we agreed that the solution was a good bit
too hacky, and
14 matches
Mail list logo
