It's not abusive, and we use Django daily. I looked at the QuerySet
recactoring and I honestly don't like the aggregate() stuff.
We are real people, and developers also :)
On Jul 27, 8:59 pm, "Tom Tobin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/27/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Q
On 7/27/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> QuerySet refactoring is like Django 1.0 ya? Never coming?
The Django developers are ::gasp:: real people, with real jobs and
real lives. I see this perhaps more readily than most, since a few of
them are my co-workers. Considering all the
On 7/28/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> QuerySet refactoring is like Django 1.0 ya? Never coming?
>
> We've been struggling to use the Django ORM for a long while now,
> because it has limited support for complex queries. GROUP BY is a
> nescesity. I don't see any problem with redo
n to not put in working fixes right now.
On Jul 27, 8:06 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 7/28/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I committed a quick patch earlier to trunk that adds group_by()
> > support.
&
On 7/28/07, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I committed a quick patch earlier to trunk that adds group_by()
> support.
Hi David,
The idea of a 'group_by' and 'having' clause has been floated many
times before, and has been rejected in preference
#x27;choices': 'my_column'}
On Jul 27, 7:49 pm, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I committed a quick patch earlier to trunk that adds group_by()
> support.
>
> I can't run the tests on trunk, as we're not quite up that far, but it
> should be
I committed a quick patch earlier to trunk that adds group_by()
support.
I can't run the tests on trunk, as we're not quite up that far, but it
should be working.
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4997#comment:1
I plan to add having=[] support to extra as well th
