[Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-08 Thread Thomas Vial
Hi all! I am considering introducing LiquiBase into a project I'm currently working on. After thinking about the process we usually follow wrt staging from development to Q&A and then to production, I feel that a very useful feature would be the ability to update any existing database to the most

Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-08 Thread Ben Wolfe
Having this kind of tooling would be great. There are many users that are running, say, database version 1.4 and want to upgrade to the latest. If they were running our war file things would be fine, but they are just using our database model. Our liquibase xml file has changesets from ver

Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-08 Thread Ben Wolfe
-- *From:* Ben Wolfe *To:* liquibase-user@lists.sourceforge.net *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 April, 2009 19:52:53 *Subject:* Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts Having this kind of tooling would be great. There are many users that are running, say, database version 1.4 and want to upgr

Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-08 Thread Voxland, Nathan
th building. Paul From: Ben Wolfe To: liquibase-user@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009 19:52:53 Subject: Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts Having this kind of tooling would be great. There are many users that are

Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-08 Thread Paul Keeble
aul From: Ben Wolfe To: liquibase-user@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Wednesday, 8 April, 2009 19:52:53 Subject: Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts Having this kind of tooling would be great. There are many users that are running, say, database versio

Re: [Liquibase-user] Generating idempotent SQL scripts

2009-04-10 Thread Thomas Vial
rocess and Liquibase is a great tool, do > something absurd and bad and Liquibase's vision won't fit anymore. > > > > I stand by my original assertion that I think its a bad idea, but if a > patch appears with this functionality and its done so in a DRY way then I'll >