On 28/03/2012, at 7:29 AM, Alex Ogier wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
> There's also a very recent, relatively active thread discussing our options
> with auth.User, which has a lot of overlap with this change. The wiki
> discusses all the options, and m
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> There's also a very recent, relatively active thread discussing our
> options with auth.User, which has a lot of overlap with this change. The
> wiki discusses all the options, and makes specific mention of th
On 27/03/2012, at 9:00 PM, Alex Ogier wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2012 8:45 AM, "Hanne Moa" wrote:
> >
> > Let's just do it. Let's not wait for a generic migration tool! I'd
> > rather the energy was spent on the app-refactor *now*, and fixing the
> > email-fields *now*, which would remove some of th
On Mar 27, 2012 8:45 AM, "Hanne Moa" wrote:
>
> Let's just do it. Let's not wait for a generic migration tool! I'd
> rather the energy was spent on the app-refactor *now*, and fixing the
> email-fields *now*, which would remove some of the pressure on fixing
> the Identity/Authentication/Authoriza
As for instance per bug #17870, email-addresses can be as long as 254
bytes. Today, the length of the EmailField is less than that. If
django is to be RFC-compliant in this respect, we will need to come up
with a way to migrate existing email-fields to the new length.
1. Migration in general
No m
