Re: Tagging an Alembic revision

2016-06-09 Thread Mike Bayer
On 06/09/2016 05:11 AM, Søren Løvborg wrote: On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Mike Bayer > wrote: Branch labels are exactly what solves this?What's wrong with using a branch label? you put "v1.2.1" as a branch label in the

Re: Tagging an Alembic revision

2016-06-09 Thread Søren Løvborg
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: > Branch labels are exactly what solves this?What's wrong with using a > branch label? you put "v1.2.1" as a branch label in the target revision > and then your "alembic downgrade v1.2.1" command works exactly. >

Re: Tagging an Alembic revision

2016-06-08 Thread Mike Bayer
On 06/08/2016 09:21 AM, Søren Løvborg wrote: Hi, What's the best practice for "tagging" an Alembic revision, that is to denote e.g. that 1ffbeb5179a5 is the database revision matching version 1.4.0 of the software? I can do it in documentation, of course, but would prefer a metho

Tagging an Alembic revision

2016-06-08 Thread Søren Løvborg
Hi, What's the best practice for "tagging" an Alembic revision, that is to denote e.g. that 1ffbeb5179a5 is the database revision matching version 1.4.0 of the software? I can do it in documentation, of course, but would prefer a method allowing e.g. "alembic downgrade v1.2.1&quo