Yury Selivanov

I wrote a bit more detailed overview of what we want to have in the first draft: https://github.com/python/exceptiongroups/issues/2

@tailhook > But we probably not going to implement QueryArg for u8 since there is no such type in edgedb. We should add it, I don't think we omitted it...

Also +1 to @ambv's way. > Having one way to upgrade instances is safe This is the key. Having two separate commands to update to minor and to major seems...

Looks good to me after a quick glance. But since this is a new capability that we would be shipping in a future release I think it makes sense to...

Can you rebase thi on top of the latest master. And update the PR to say that `branch create` does not switch the active branch to then newly created one.

Thanks Paul, this is a good proposal. > If some fields are optional, it needs the whole query builder to deal with that correctly. Yeah, but we will have query...

Lastly, your opening example can be simplified: ```python db.fetchone(""" INSERT User { first_name := $first_name, last_name := $last_name, birth_date := $birth_date, } """, **form) ``` And it's debatable if ```python...

Hm, can we actually call the top module 'schema' and then nest 'std' and 'cal' into it? So `schema::std::int64` and `schema::cal::local_date`? Kind of reflecting the actual layout of EdgeDB to...

> I'm -0 on this being default for users. Fair enough. > It's a very long name: edgedb_protocol::schema::std::int64. Speaking of long names, I'd very much prefer the Rust crate/namespace for...

As for what to rename `edgedb-protocol::model`, I'm +1 to rename "model" to "data".