On Dec 8, 2006, at 3:09 PM, Courtenay wrote:
>
> On 12/8/06, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Francois Beausoleil wrote:
>>> 2006/12/8, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
If I understand your suggestion correctly, it amounts to sorting
and
On 12/8/06, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Francois Beausoleil wrote:
> > 2006/12/8, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> If I understand your suggestion correctly, it amounts to sorting and
> >> applying migrations based on timestamp. I think real time
On Dec 8, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Francois Beausoleil wrote:
> 2006/12/8, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> If I understand your suggestion correctly, it amounts to sorting and
>> applying migrations based on timestamp. I think real time is not the
>> right dimension for this as progress on dif
2006/12/8, Michael Schuerig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I understand your suggestion correctly, it amounts to sorting and
> applying migrations based on timestamp. I think real time is not the
> right dimension for this as progress on different branches is not
> coordinated by time. Rather, I suggest
On Friday 08 December 2006 18:53, Francois Beausoleil wrote:
> 2006/12/8, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Dec 8, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Courtenay wrote:
> > > Here's the patch :)
> >
> > That looks really neat. It's certainly simpler than my solution,
> > and I can't think of any problems with
2006/12/8, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Dec 8, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Courtenay wrote:
> > Here's the patch :)
>
> That looks really neat. It's certainly simpler than my solution, and
> I can't think of any problems with that off the top of my head.
I don't know. Maybe we should drop version
On Dec 8, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Courtenay wrote:
>
> On 12/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> self-reply here, pre-empting questions..
>>>
>>> Why can't we just have a ParallelMigration (IndependentMigration)
>>> subclass that doesn't check for duplicates in the numbering?
>>>
>>>
>
> Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
> I'd appreciate some feedback / criticism.
> >>>
> >>> Wow, this looks really complicated. I think the solution with all
Why can't we just have a ParallelMigration (IndependentMigration)
subclass that doesn't che
self-reply here, pre-empting questions..
Courtenay wrote:
> > Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
> > I'd appreciate some feedback / criticism.
> > >>>
> > >>> Wow, this looks really complicated. I think the solution with all
>
> Why can't we just have a Par
On Dec 4, 2006, at 1:36 PM, Rick Olson wrote:
>
> On 12/4/06, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Manfred Stienstra wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:55, Brad Ediger wrote:
Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
I
On 12/4/06, Brad Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Manfred Stienstra wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:55, Brad Ediger wrote:
> >>
> >> Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
> >> I'd appreciate some feedback / criticism.
> >
> > Wow,
On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Manfred Stienstra wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:55, Brad Ediger wrote:
>>
>> Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
>> I'd appreciate some feedback / criticism.
>
> Wow, this looks really complicated. I think the solution with all
> version
On Dec 4, 2006, at 4:55, Brad Ediger wrote:
>
> Is this something that would be a useful addition to Rails core?
> I'd appreciate some feedback / criticism.
Wow, this looks really complicated. I think the solution with all
version control problems is communication, not complicated naming
s
13 matches
Mail list logo
