These changes are now (exclusively) on the Roller 2.0 branch.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=233011&view=rev
Apologies.
--a.
p.s. I admit an error of judgement in this case. I am still not OK with the blanket "db changes only in major release revisions"
proposal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Gangolli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: note: db upgrade for 1.3
For those working on trunk:
Revision 233006 backs the db changes related to ROL-754 out of trunk.
For those working on the Roller 2.0 branch:
I will be putting these on the Roller 2.0 branch in the next day or two.
--a.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anil Gangolli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: note: db upgrade for 1.3
That's a valid point; I'll back these changes out of trunk in the next day or
two.
I am, on the other hand, not yet convinced of the new release plan (proposed in
http://www.rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerReleasePlan).
I'd like more discussion, and I'd like to see it itemized in the same way as the earlier
http://www.rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_ReleaseNumberingConvention that Dave had written up and I had edited.
Reserving even minor database changes to major releases will stunt progress or will cause major release numbers to advance quite
rapidly. This would have put us at Roller 5.x or 6.x by this point, which is certainly ok, but there are other implied semantics
that people associate with major release numbers; arguably, we're somewhat more stabilized now, but not every db change is
equivalently difficult and risky.
--a.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Raible" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: note: db upgrade for 1.3
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
>
