On Apr 8, 2:21 am, Marco Antonio Filho <marcoafi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I do agree with you. But I read so many articles that state that the > migrations are supposed only to contain the structure of the tables, not > changes in the records. >
I get confused sometimes too, but what helps me is to think about it this way: if you are moving data to conform to a new schema, then it is really part of the schema change and ergo belongs in a migration. However, if you are changing data for some other purpose (for example requiring everyone to reset their password on next login after some security issue), then that would belong in something more of a rake/ capistrano task since its not schema related. I believe when people saying migrations shouldn't change the records, they mean outside of changes required by schema changes, which are what the migrations are supposed to address. My 2c, \Peter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
