On Dec 8, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Francois Beausoleil wrote: > 2006/12/8, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> If I understand your suggestion correctly, it amounts to sorting and >> applying migrations based on timestamp. I think real time is not the >> right dimension for this as progress on different branches is not >> coordinated by time. Rather, I suggest to apply migrations in the >> order >> of their corresponding revision numbers. This approach doesn't >> guarantee that there can be no conflicts when branches are merged, >> but >> I think this can't be guaranteed anyway. > > You are right, Michael. Sort by time, then apply. So, you suggest > that we use the revision number instead ? This would tie Rails to one > or more SCM. Is that advisable ? > > Maybe we should sort by time the migration was committed ? But then > again, we tie Rails AR to SCM. > > This is a hard problem.
The basic problem is endemic to SCM anyways. If SCM is not being used, there is generally no need for this fix. In my mind, there's nothing wrong with saying "if you use version control, Rails handles migration merging for you, but only if you use SVN". Nobody is worse off under that arrangement than they are now. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
