Ok, two things: 1) Markus' idea of having more than one folder for migration modules seems reasonable enough. I disagree with his comment about the placement of merge migrations --
> Django needs to know where to > place the merge-migration. I'd go with the first item in the list I'd require an explicit selection by the user; I'd still want to make sure the selected path is one of those specified for migration modules, so a dialog for selection may be more appropriate than a command-line parameter. BUT 2) Emma's experiment, essentially, proves that the migration system can live, migrate, and generate new migrations with two leaf-migrations present. Which begs the question -- are merge migrations really necessary at all? I know why they were necessary for South, where migrations in an app were ordered linearly, but we have grown past that. If, as I now suspect, we actually don't need them, then the whole idea sounds much more reasonable. I still feel funny about a migration which belongs to one app and works on the models of another, and would prefer some better- looking solution -- e.g. "project migrations" (there are other reasons to think of them, like, special migrations to change swappable models); but unless some such idea gets some backing, I'd be only -0 on this. Shai.
