Hi, is there a best practice that I'm not aware of if features are developed in two separate branches which both contain migrations, like by two developers? Those migrations typically end up having the same sequence number p, so they can't easily be merged. Even worse, if you rename one to have a higher number q and then merge them, you have to manually pay attention to which migration has already been executed on which database as number p. If you don't, either could end up not being executed, and/or startup fails because the migration is attempted to be executed twice.
Wouldn't it be better, instead of just a single number, to have one entry per migration in the _dbupdater table so that * migration classes could be named freely * merges would be painless * all databases would update automagically again? I'd like some feedback on that idea. If everybody finds it a good proposal, I'd start implementing that. Maik _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
