We are getting lots of conflicts with migration numbers in merge props.
What are thoughts on using date time stamps (UTC format) instead of sequential
numbering?
So instead of:
021_rename_image_ids.py
We'd use:
20110402122512_rename_image_ids.py (or something similar).
Rails projects now
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 09:47 -0400, Dan Prince wrote:
We are getting lots of conflicts with migration numbers in merge
props.
What are thoughts on using date time stamps (UTC format) instead of
sequential numbering?
I suspect that you'd have the potential for a more subtle form of
conflict.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Dan Prince wrote:
We are getting lots of conflicts with migration numbers in merge props.
What are thoughts on using date time stamps (UTC format) instead of
sequential numbering?
So instead of:
021_rename_image_ids.py
We'd use:
I was getting migrate errors because gaps are not allowed in the migration
numbers. Maybe this could be changed so that folks could use arbitrarily large
numbers in their branches until ready to propose for merge.That would help
minimize conflicts and manual bzr rename on our local
This might be a little crazy, but how about numbering new migrations 999 and
having tarmac rename the file before merging. Then all we need is a little
logic in the migrate code to allow 999 for testing purposes.
Vish
On Jun 1, 2011 9:33 AM, Brian Schott bfsch...@gmail.com wrote:
I was getting
That's not crazy, but I'd recommend a range of numbers 900-999? There have
been cases where larger branches have multiple migrate files.
Brian Schott
bfsch...@gmail.com
On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
This might be a little crazy, but how about numbering new
I think timestamp is the way to go. File name conflict shouldn't be the way
we prevent ourselves from doing stupid things. If someone merge props a
change with a migration, it's the job of both the developer and the core
reviewers to make sure something horrible isn't happening in the database as
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Trey Morris trey.mor...@rackspace.com wrote:
I like vish's idea. instead of 999, maybe it should be anything over 9000.
-tr3buchet
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Brian Schott bfsch...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not crazy, but I'd
I'd like to point out that incubation of a project and a proposed API
are two very different things, and if we couple them too tightly, we
will make unnecessary problems for ourselves.
I feel that there should be ZERO barrier to entry for the proposal of
the API spec. Once people determine what
9 matches
Mail list logo
