Migrations would be awesome. As to where they should go, I am of two minds. They are clearly a separate layer, and could be a separate project that relied on ClojureQL. OTOH, we use migrations on 100% of our projects that use relational data, so why bother with an additional dependency?
By all means ships 1.0 first though :-) Stu >> I'm fully aware that my argumentation would carry much more weight if >> I had the opportunity to contribute some code for migrations, but I >> currently don't have :( > > Your argument lacks no weight. You make a good case for migrations so > I'll look into it, and I'll be very happy to write up the first > implementation myself. > > I think we might end up in a situation though, where I want to freeze > ClojureQL as > version 1.0 as soon as we have a completely stable core which is > usable in projects > both large and small. In that setting, migrations look more like 1.1 > material to me. > > Nothing is decided though and I am looking into it. > > /Lau B. Jensen > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient > with your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
