Le 14/11/2010 20:45, Chris Cormack a écrit :
On 15 November 2010 08:41, LAURENT Henri-Damien <henridamien.laurent@biblibre.com> wrote:
Le 11/11/2010 04:07, Chris Cormack a écrit :
Question for Mr. 3.4 RM:
:)
Is the procedure for dealing with DB revision numbers still the same? As far as I remember from the 3.2 development days, the procedure was to patch kohastructure.sql (or sysprefs.sql, or whatever), then add the update to the end of updatedatabase.pl with a generic version number, like 3.01.00.XXX. Patching kohastructure.pl was left to the RM when they applied the patch.
Patching kohaversion.pl you mean?
I had a crazy table on the wiki for a bit, but this seemed to work better.
That still the consensus?
Yup that is the current practice.
If we do implement DBIx::Class::Schema and DBIx::Class::Schema::Versioned, updatedatabase.pl and kohastructure.pl might both go away. But not yet. Well, as far as DB structure is concerned, this is ok. But if we need some new systempreference or some new data in the database (for instance some change in the marc framework...) then Schema and its versioning system would not be enough. Any plans for that ?
Thats a good question, one I don't have a good answer for yet, but I do think your atomic updates work is certainly a step in the right direction. Would need some concensus on the directory structure, which could help. Why not a directory structure db_updates |- acquisitions |- members/patrons/borrowers |- ...... One file for each update. And have a directory by release and symlinks to those db_updates. .... But there was a discussion on that... http://lists.koha.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2010-February/033588.html No concensus reached... No decisions, no collaboration planned. But that would be quite a change. for all the previous works... could be quite tedious.
ANSI compliant sql inserts/updates for the win :) -- Henri-Damien LAURENT