Well, if they're using this "feature", their implementation is already
broken - they just don't know it. We don't need to provide a graceful exit
path for behaviour that is known to be broken right now - this is a case of
alerting the user "oh crap - we didn't know you were going to try to do
that - stop it now!".


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Daniel Pyrathon
<notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In docs/ref/checks.txt:
>
> > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ Fields
> >  * **fields.E134**: ``max_digits`` must be greater or equal to ``decimal_places``.
> >  * **fields.E140**: FilePathFields must have either ``allow_files`` or ``allow_folders`` set to True.
> >  * **fields.E150**: GenericIPAddressFields cannot accept blank values if null values are not allowed, as blank values are stored as nulls.
> > +* **fields.W151**: The options auto_now, auto_now_add, and default are mutually exclusive. Only one of these options must be present.
>
> Correct! changing W151 to E151. Just one concern: won't this break
> existing implementations? My reasoning behind using Warning instead of
> Error is because we give users some time to change their field options (if
> necessary).
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/django/django/pull/2428/files#r11738824>
> .
>