Julio Nobrega wrote:
> Ok... but I think it's strange... The earliest possible "positive"
> date is 01-01-, isn't?
Depends on what calendar you're using. Year zero doesn't exist in the
Gregorian calendar, but "-01-01" is afaik allowed by ISO 8601 (where
it means January 1st, 1 BC).
On 11/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Julio Nobrega wrote:
> > I don't think it Django should work/accept Mysql's -00-00. The
> > correct data you need is NULL.
>
> In my experience i've seen the date '-00-00' used as a "min date"
> (which is not NULL). I'm not advo
On 11/2/06, wam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose that this decision be reconsidered. I hope this
> isn't too much of a paraphrase, but it seems that the resolution of 443
> boiled down that -00-00 time/date stamps are a MySQL botch and not
> something Django should work around.
I don't think it Django should work/accept Mysql's -00-00. The
correct data you need is NULL. Besides, since version 5, Mysql doesn't
accept that value on Date fields anymore by default.
On 11/2/06, wam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I just discovered a ticket that I have submitted a patch
I just discovered a ticket that I have submitted a patch to
(ticket:2763 - http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2763) is a
duplicate of not only another ticket that I had initially seen
(ticket:2369 - http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2369) but a much
older ticket (ticket:443 - http://code.djan
