On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Tekin Suleyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks for your work. I'm sorry I have to have a negative response to it, >> but I'm still thankful you took the time to work on it, because the more we >> think about this problem, the better solution we could come up with; > > Don't be sorry, I'm not even sure I agree with myself anymore! As you say > the more we think about it the better.
Thanks for all your work and thinking about this issue, guys, and most of all your patches! I too am unsure whether or not to follow Rails' migration behaviour too closely. I don't have anything against timestamps, but equally I feel that the problem they attempt to address is far less likely to be encountered by plugin developers than application developers (and even then it was relatively rare and could be solved by communication). So, I'm hesitant to make significant changes at the moment, until we've reached a better understanding of the implications (thanks for starting the discussion by the way, Tekin!). Perhaps a useful way to approach this, for the moment and while Rails itself settles down, is to consider what is currently broken with plugin migrations. As I understand it, the main issue is that migrations generated in an application cannot be moved into plugins because they are named with timestamps. Is that correct? -- * J * ~ _______________________________________________ Engine-Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rails-engines.org/listinfo.cgi/engine-developers-rails-engines.org
