I think the reasoning I've provided in the ticket is a good argument
for why we should make this change, but it would be
backwards-incompatible, since anyone who was relying on that behavior
will now need to apply ordering prior to handing a QuerySet over to
one of those views.
So... anyone have strong feelings against the change?
--
"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct."
Personally, I think it's easier to just skip the parameter and rely on
the fact that you can apply whatever ordering you like to the QuerySet
before passing it to the view, but it's worth noting as an alternate
proposal.
Yes, I do not like the idea of adding a new order_by parameter
either. However, there is a bit of an issue involving the
archive_index view though because it also uses a num_latest parameter,
IMHO implying that the items will be sorted by date_field descending.
Gary
Hm.
Since archive_index is explicitly meant to provide the latest objects,
I could see keeping the order_by in that view, and making it clear in
the docs that it'll override any ordering you try to do on the
QuerySet before having to the view. But archive_year should drop its
explicit ordering for consistency with the other generic views.