| 1 | | @MarkusH - Would this work? -> If #24075 was fixed primarily to aid the development of Django itself (and I'm happy to be corrected on that), would it be viable to park those (stopgap/temporary) changes behind a 'private' (as in private API-style, but still documented) feature flag? Then anyone hacking on Django who hits it can enable it, and everyone else who is building on Django don't get affected? |
| | 1 | @MarkusH - Would this work? : |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | If #24075 was fixed primarily to aid the development of Django itself (and I'm happy to be corrected on that), would it be viable to park those (stopgap/temporary) changes behind a 'private' feature flag (as in private API-style, but still documented)? |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | Then anyone hacking on Django who hits it can enable it, and everyone else who is building on Django doesn't get affected? |