mmd-osm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)
> even the question of how much point there is in treating the two
> separately but that's another can of worms.
The idea to get rid of current tables in one way or another isn't entirely new.
Back in 2009, the infamous "Rant
mmd-osm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)
> I can see that changeset_subscribers is accessed by cgimap, for example.
> Would that be a blocker?
I don't think so. The code you've found in cgimap is not used in production.
Rails is taking care of the changeset create endp
gravitystorm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#5619)
> Have you also evaluated the other way around, i.e. change the model names to
> match the db table names?
Yes, I've considered it. But I think that in some cases this would not be
wanted - for example, renaming the `Follow
> > So my proposal is to rename the tables to match the model names.
>
> Have you also evaluated the other way around, i.e. change the model names to
> match the db table names? Assuming that's feasible, that's significantly less
> risk and effort for anything non-Rails (planetdump-ng, osmdbt, c
> So my proposal is to rename the tables to match the model names.
Have you also evaluated the other way around, i.e. change the model names to
match the db table names? Assuming that's feasible, that's significantly less
risk and effort for anything non-Rails.
--
Reply to this email directl
