A story from gerrit / bigtable land that I think supports both Matt's
and mine statements:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/repo-discuss/iR-T8fTRC7E/XBT3At0M-j4J
/Mads
___
kallithea-general mailing list
kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org
http://
On 03/20/2015 05:44 PM, Jan Heylen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
I think Matt's response in this thread gives a good answer to "why not" and
is a relevant challenge but doesn't give a "good" answer to "then how". It
would be nice if the described ideal was feasib
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
> I think Matt's response in this thread gives a good answer to "why not" and
> is a relevant challenge but doesn't give a "good" answer to "then how". It
> would be nice if the described ideal was feasible ... but I don't think it
> is for us
I think Matt's response in this thread gives a good answer to "why not"
and is a relevant challenge but doesn't give a "good" answer to "then
how". It would be nice if the described ideal was feasible ... but I
don't think it is for us. Scaleable nosql databases lean more towards
that - the old
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 20:15 +0100, Jan Heylen wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Regularly I hear that we don't want to ch
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 20:58 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 20:15 +0100, Jan Heylen wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De S
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 20:15 +0100, Jan Heylen wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Regularly I hear that we don't want
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 20:15 +0100, Jan Heylen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Regularly I hear that we don't want to change the model yet to stay
> >> backwards compatible.
> >>
>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Regularly I hear that we don't want to change the model yet to stay
>> backwards compatible.
>>
>> However, I do see several 'dbmigrate' scripts in the source base,
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:24 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Regularly I hear that we don't want to change the model yet to stay
> backwards compatible.
>
> However, I do see several 'dbmigrate' scripts in the source base,
> which hint at it being possible to migrate across databas
Hi,
Regularly I hear that we don't want to change the model yet to stay
backwards compatible.
However, I do see several 'dbmigrate' scripts in the source base,
which hint at it being possible to migrate across database changes.
Can someone explain in more detail why we do not want such database
11 matches
Mail list logo