[development] Separating configuration vs data tables
boris at bryght.com
Thu Jun 15 17:52:19 UTC 2006
On 15-Jun-06, at 10:21 AM, Alan Dixon wrote:
> Conclusion: rather than trying to categorize in detail all the
> different tables, I'd propose allowing them to be in just three
> different categories:
> a. transactional (a good word after all ...)
> b. content
> c. configuration
> where the default is 'content'. This imaginary script would then:
> 1. ignore all the log tables
> 2. interactively allow each of the content tables to be ignored,
> merged or replaced, after an analysis of the differences.
> 3. replace all the configuration tables (and save the difference
> somewhwere as a sql script that could be called to selectively reverse
> some changes? ah, now it's getting ambitious).
> Some problems would occur if you're merging node tables - you'd need
> to update all the related id's in the modules for example.
Alan -- thanks for this write up. I think the staging/production
server issue is one that merits attention. A lot of times, it means
we're running without a safety net -- it is too hard to merge
(config, content) changes between a dev site and a live site...so
lots of people just don't, or do extra work in re-doing the same
config steps on a live site.
Not sure how to go about this...a few folks need to bang heads about
the best way to get this done.
Vancouver 778-896-2747 San Francisco 415-367-3595
More information about the development