@dpp: Did you want to check-in the new schema-related changes before I deploy tomorrow? I didn't see any related commits?
D. On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM, David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote: > My plan was to completely revise the User table to allow for multiple > authenication types as well as supporting message signing (the precursor > step to federation) > > It will be difficult to preserve the tables (including the Users and the > Messages) unless I plan to do so from the beginning. The cost is about 30% > more work. > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > If I made breaking changes to the schema that ESME uses, how many of you >> > will need a migration script from old to new? >> >> Merging the pools branch involved breaking DB changes as well and >> AFAIK there were no complaints to Dick when he asked about nuking the >> DB. >> >> The most valuable information to keep is messages, and they are >> volatile info anyway- they're gone from the timeline when there are 40 >> newer messages. I suspect that nobody will mind, especially if the >> tradeoff is a particularly compelling new feature... which we are now >> only guessing :) >> >> Vassil >> > > > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Git some: http://github.com/dpp >
