In this particular case, I'm -1 on this change. It's to avoid an error with MySQL 5, and my guess is most people aren't using this database. It's good to look ahead and plan ahead, but I think it's more important to worry about existing users - who are likely on an older version of MySQL and don't like to run database upgrade scripts.
Matt On 8/16/05, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe this is consistent with the conventions we had *earlier* agreed on > in > http://www.rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_ReleaseNumberingConvention > > I think it would be a bad idea to prohibit all db schema changes to full > major X.0 versions. We've so far used X.Y versions for > these, and avoided including them in X.Y.Z versions. Alfternatively, the > full major number is going to jump much more rapidly. > > If everyone else is in agreement, however, I will back out the code change. > > At this point, it is on trunk, so you must let me know. > --a. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allen Gilliland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "roller-dev" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:42 AM > Subject: Re: note: db upgrade for 1.3 > > > > So, based on the new release plan which I believe we have mostly agreed on, > > this change to the schema should be reserved for a > > major release (i.e. 2.0). > > > > can we hold off on this db upgrade for the 1.3 release? > > > > -- Allen > > > > > > On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 10:44, Anil Gangolli wrote: > >> I've started the db upgrade script for 1.3. I had only one minor change > >> to fix a column name that conflicts with a keyword in > >> MySQL 5.x. See ROL-754. > >> > >> If you build from latest on trunk (SVN revision 232624 or higher), you > >> will need to apply the 120-to-130-migration.sql script (or > >> rebuild your db from scratch). > >> > >> --a > > > >
