>> Yes, since no one needs it. Okay no one isn't true, but no one (for true >> this time) who needed it stepped up and said "I'll implement it and see that >> it ends up in trunk" >> > > I'm sorry, that completely mis-characterises the situation. Lots of > people want this, but every single time this has been brought up since > I started using django (1.0), a core dev or BFDL has explicitly ruled > it out, saying "we cannot do this, requires schema migration, we'll > look at it for the next version".
This is not true. There have been times when we have said we cannot consider it right now, and that a solid proposal should be brought up at the calls for proposals for 1.1/1.2/1.3 etc., or at other times when the core developers can look at it.
And every time, the proposal has either been missing or simply not been adequate - for example, the GSoC 2010 and 2011 proposals regarding this. Russell gave detailed feedback on why these solutions were not adequate , and at other times has provided feedback on possible strategies . And the people who went away to work on the problem have gone silent or admitted defeat. One presumes they fixed their immediate problem in a way that would not be a general solution, and moved on, and that is perfectly understandable. A adequate solution to this is very hard, and probably requires solving several other big problems first (like at least one of lazy foreign keys/virtual models/database migrations).
It isn't, however, impossible. Our definition of 'need' is that someone is sufficiently motivated to overcome the obstacles, and contribute a solution that works for other people as well as themselves.