I like `db migrate` and would like to vote for it. It implies to apply all migrations including the initial (init) migrations similar to how projects like Django do.
Regards, Pankaj Koti *Senior Software Engineer, *OSS Engineering Team. Location: Pune, India Timezone: Indian Standard Time (IST) Email: [email protected] Mobile: +91 9730079985 On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:03 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm for changing it. How about `db migrate` as the only (non-deprecated) > command we keep? > > On 27 July 2023 08:01:32 BST, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >Also one comment here: the whole point here is to remove confusion to > >the users. If we leave `upgrade` in place, the confusion will remain. > >So I think we **SHOULD** change it. This also means we will have to > >also re-learn the new command (I know we are all used to 'upgrade"). > >So for me, the question is not whether we should change "upgrade" - > >but what is the name that will be least confusing to the users :). > > > >I know it's easiest to "keep things as we are used to" but we. should > >rather look at the future users of ours. Maybe we should gather some > >options (constructive ideas are welcome) and vote on them ? > > > >J. > > > >On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:55 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> We can also name it `create-or-ugrade` - a bit awkward but way better > >> than upgrade. > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 8:24 AM Akash Sharma <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Upgrade gives an idea that existing instance will be upgraded to > desired > >> > version. The existing instance is spun up by db init ( in the > beginning of > >> > the process). With init getting deprecated, it would be good to have > a > >> > command that suggests that db can be created (if doesn't exist) or > upgraded > >> > (if it does) in the command name itself. > >> > > >> > Anyway its not a blocker for the above goal. It can be renamed > whenever > >> > needed. > >> > > >> > On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, 11:33 Amogh Desai, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Good idea overall. > >> > > I am also aligned towards moving it out of `db` subcommand. I am > not very > >> > > much aligned towards using the keyword/action word - `upgrade`. It > sets a > >> > > different context. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Amogh Desai > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 1:02 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > +1 for moving it under "connections" - good idea. > >> > > > > >> > > > I think "upgrade" is confusing for the first time because upgrade > >> > > > implies "upgrade FROM something". The "sync" is not set-in-stone. > >> > > > Maybe there are other ideas? > >> > > > > >> > > > The inspiration is Terraform - where we describe the "target" > state we > >> > > > want to reach, so maybe "airflow db apply" is a better one? > >> > > > > >> > > > J. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 8:51 PM Jed Cunningham < > [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure I like sync over upgrade, personally. Everything > else > >> > > > > discussed sounds good though. > >> > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > >
