Owen: I agree that it could create problems with upgrading and I think I would be more hesitant to push so hard for that change if any of the following scenarios were true: a. Habari was already at a 1.0 release. b. Habari was already using the taxonomy functionality.
As it stands, I think this is the only time this change could be made and needs to be seriously considered. I'll defend my position on this vigorously until I'm either swayed by other arguments or this becomes the accepted approach. Nathan Hammond PS: For everyone commenting on this thread, I'm just arguing to make sure we end up with the best solution for the long term benefit of the project. I'm very glad to have external input on something that will be of such great importance to Habari as it is to develop in the future. Thank you so much for your critiques. On Oct 16, 10:23 am, Owen Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nathan Hammond wrote: > > > Anything I'm missing? Or does that sound reasonable? > > Changing schema makes me nervous because it irrevocably changes the > software footprint with upgrade code, so I like to take hard looks at > how necessary the changes are. > > But yeah, all that sounds reasonable. > > Owen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
