"David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>
>> Well, fair enough I suppose. Or it would be if you gave me an
>> alternative that provides a simpler way to support those 3 upgrades.
>
> I did: a naming convention with upgrade scripts that have the version
> number in them. You rejected it.
I'm sorry, I'm not following. You're proposing to pick one file or
another depending on its name. You're not proposing to have less than
three files to handle three upgrade setups. You still have to produce
the exact same file set.
The only difference is that the core code, in your proposal, has to know
what is a version number and where to find it in the file names, whereas
in mine the core code does not have to assume anything at all about what
version numbers look like. Nor to know how do they compare.
Oh, and in my current proposal and code, the author can reuse the same
file more than once for some upgrade setups, too.
>> Of course if that's too much for you, you can also choose to only
>> support upgrades one versions at a time and provide only two scripts.
>> Note also that I don't recall of any proposal on the table that would
>> help with that situation, so I'm all ears.
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00296.php
I see there no solution to your reaction here. Please take the time to
tell us more about what exactly it is that you hated, and how to make it
lovely. We won't make any progress with your current commenting style.
Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
