|
|
|
|
|
by keredson
3800 days ago
|
|
True, this doesn't do data migrations, and we still write the occasional(1) data migration when needed. But those are no more difficult to write, and the much more common non-data migrations are an order of magnitude easier. So net win. (1) If your data migrations are not "occasional" (and I mean very occasional) that's a sign you're doing a poor job at modeling your data. Splitting one column into two is almost always an example of someone really f-ing up the original schema. Think of it this way: how do you switch branches? Do you look up the most recent ancestor, check it out, migrate down to it, then back up the new branch? It's so hard I don't know any rails devs who actually do it. But with a my tool it's a one-line command. PRs w/ schema changes actually get tested now, not just eyeballed. Also, did you even read the "rant"? Do you seriously like the proposed version control tool modeled after rail's migrations? ;) |
|
As of occasional (or not) data migrations, it depends on project and its history. If project is live, rapidly developed and has faced couple of pivots, migration history will reflect it.