Hassan Schroeder wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Mk 27 > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> because most sane people would want to preserve the contents of an >> existing db when they modify it. > > Erm, so maybe the most appropriate ("sane") thing to do at that > point would be to figure out *why* you're (apparently) repeating a > migration that's already been done?
There was an existing database, yes, I thought that was clear. The reason I did it again was (also clear if you can read, but to repeat) because I wanted to move the session store to Active Record so I was following this instruction: > You need to create the session table as below > rake db:sessions:create > rake db:migrate Which I am grateful for that advice, because it worked; but I did have to create the db manually (because I want it populated, and already have a script to do that), add the session table myself (to the aforementioned script), and insert it back in. So I guess I don't get the point of the migration thing yet: is it more for people who don't want to create a db themself, or what? Nb, this is my second casual week using rails. If all I want to do is add a table to the database, why would it want to rebuild the whole thing, ie, why not just add the new table and leave the existing tables alone? I presume there is away to do this and I haven't read enough of the API docs yet. Is this going against "the convention", hence I needed to do some more "configuration"? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
