On Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:32:26 PM UTC-4, pavling wrote: > > On 15 May 2011 18:22, Nicolas Buduroi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, while thinking about this, I realized how tiring it can be to > > search/consult/erase migrations files and I'm more and more sold to put > all > > migrations into one file. > > Why go half-way? Put all the models in one file too, bundle all the > controllers in with them, and you can whip the helpers in at the > bottom (we don't need them often) > Lol, good one, but more seriously, the problem with migrations is just that the timestamps comes first making annoying to open in Emacs. That's a very personal issue though, as I never got used to things like ido-mode.
> Alternatively, there's no serious issue at all with having migrations > in separate files - yes, in one file I *can* merge them in my source > control software, but if they're in their own files I don't have to > bother. For the zero benefit that one migration file over lots of > files gives me, I can avoid the extra niggle of having to resolve > merge conflicts in it. > I understand and I'm not condemning AR on that design decision, which is perfectly fine. I'm just trying to see if there's some issue I'm overlooking by putting all migrations into one file, which could have more concrete advantages in the library I'm writing. > PS What do you ever search migrations for? Everything I've ever needed > is in schema.rb, or I just look in the DB... > Searching migrations is not something I'm doing often, but it could help sometimes to investigate why something have been done in a certain way. -- 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.
