Though, upon reflection, it sounds like what you're really saying is
that even if I can run them alongside one another, it's not a good
idea to do so.

On Mar 13, 1:40 pm, rosslaird <> wrote:
> It seems that tags uses a 'tags' table. I am using the tags extension
> (version 1.5), created by Benny Degezelle and Jim Gay. The version of
> taggable that I am trying to run alongside tags is version 1.2.1,
> created by you (Will). Both of these versions are the most recent
> available from github.
> Maybe the tags extension that I am running is the incorrect one? It's
> this one:
> There are various other tags extensions listed on github (though all
> the others seem to be qualified for a special application, such as
> navigation).
> Before I go messing around with the tags extension (which I will
> surely mess up even more), maybe this is simply a matter of getting
> the correct tags extension. (Maybe?)
> Ross
> On Mar 13, 6:51 am, William Ross <> wrote:
> > On 12 Mar 2011, at 22:18, rosslaird wrote:
> > > I have the tags extension installed, and I want to try out taggable.
> > > But it seems that both use a table called "tags," and this causes the
> > > migration of taggable to halt. I suppose I will have to remove the
> > > tags extension to install taggable, but if there is another way to do
> > > this (so that I preserve both extensions) that would be preferable.
> > > Ideas and suggestions most welcome.
> > I thought the tags extension used a 'meta_tags' table and MetaTag object? 
> > They ought to be compatible in the sense that you can install one and then 
> > the other without destructive side effects.
> > You might even be able to run them side by side: taggable takes over the 
> > keywords field where tags adds its own text-to-tags process. I wouldn't 
> > recommend it, though: there are likely to be odd method-name clashes and 
> > some admin UI collisions are likely. It will be hard to evaluate them, even 
> > if they work.
> > best,
> > will

Reply via email to