Yes, the large number of weird things people need custom SQL for is why I
want to push for migrations much more overall - especially for cases like
post_syncdb (should be replaced by data migrations) and the arbitrary
initial SQL file support (should be replaced by custom migrations).
I don't
I have generally not kept my migrations so they always work from scratch
for similar reasons Luke said - Data migrations are often dependent on the
data in the site - this is particularly relevant to content-driven (CMSy)
sites where I may need to move a load of page about as a data migration
On 05/31/2013 02:08 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
One problem with this is that you have to be careful to write
migrations
that will always work from scratch. This is best practice, but I
have on
occasion used data migrations that were for specific problems, and may
have
>
> One problem with this is that you have to be careful to write migrations
> that will always work from scratch. This is best practice, but I have on
> occasion used data migrations that were for specific problems, and may
> have depended on specific data in the database. I've also used them for
On 30/05/13 20:55, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> The way South works, and the way this will work (for new installs as
> well as tests) is that if migrations are present for an app, it will
> always create new databases by running through them from the very first
> migration to the latest one.
One
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm starting to plan out the commands for the new migrations stuff in
> Django, and I've hit something of an impasse trying to decide which option
> to go for.
>
> Short background: South modified
I haven't used South as much as I should have (instead I have painful
> manual scripts to do migrations). The biggest pain point about
> database schemas for me is easily test database setup. That is, sync
> from scratch. I do the following currently:
> 1. load schema + a little bit of data from
On 30 touko, 21:03, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> I prefer option 3, but getting rid of syncdb might be controversial, so I
> want to ask for people's opinions. syncdb would continue to exist for at
> least 3 versions if not forever; it would just be an alias to run "migrate"
> in
Hi all,
On Thursday 30 May 2013, Andrew Godwin wrote:
>
> The proposals are:
>
> 1. Change syncdb so that it both does the old behaviour (adds models for
> unmigrated apps), and additionally runs any outstanding migrations. There
> would be a separate "migrate" command for more complex
On 30.05.2013, at 20:03, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm starting to plan out the commands for the new migrations stuff in Django,
> and I've hit something of an impasse trying to decide which option to go for.
>
> Short background: South modified syncdb to
On 05/30/2013 12:03 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> The proposals are:
>
> 1. Change syncdb so that it both does the old behaviour (adds models
> for unmigrated apps), and additionally runs any outstanding migrations.
> There would be a separate "migrate" command for more complex operations,
> such
I'm broadly +1 on deprecating syncbd, it's possibly the most inaccurately
named thing in all of Django (hint: it doesn't sync anything).
Alex
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm starting to plan out the commands for the new
Hi everyone,
I'm starting to plan out the commands for the new migrations stuff in
Django, and I've hit something of an impasse trying to decide which option
to go for.
Short background: South modified syncdb to just sync non-migrated apps, and
you had to go and run migrate separately to get
13 matches
Mail list logo