Re: Goal #6 : Rating - 326561 Test/Review/Comment

On 24/10/06, John Stowers <john stowers lists gmail com> wrote:
> I know that I'm a bit late, but I've been real hard pressed with studies...
> If the major problem is the database change, then I think that the
> time should be taken to reconsider the other database problems, and to
> make a revised database forward- compatible with future versions.
> Might I propose this:
> A new database format that contains the needed fields for the Rating
> patch, and also a few as-yet unneeded fields. I figure that four ints,
> four varchars, and two text fields should get us past the next four or
> five database change requirements that future patches may need. Is
> there any downside to having these new redundant, as-yet unused
> fields?

I dont think that this approach is solving the problem, nor is it
planning intelligently for the future. While the approach may work, I
think that moving feature X as field Y into the database *each time*
something new is added is not very clean.

The idea is to give F-Spot the flexibility to add new features without
having to worry about a new database format. Remember, it's still beta
software, and being developed rather quickly.

Dotan Cohen

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]