addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [ruby-110] Sqlite3

From: user 4.
Sent on: Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:15 PM
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the sqlite idea. Too many hands in the cookie jar. It'll get overwritten too much through subversion and just be more of a pain in the ass than anything. I see why it would be a good idea maybe for just a couple people working on it. But this many people would probably wreak havoc on such a structure.

I think you should use whatever db you want to locally though.

Rick Bradley wrote:
On 11/8/07, Levi Kennedy <[address removed]> wrote:
Rails comes built in with an sqlite3 adapter...and for us apple users,
OS X comes with sqlite3.  So its already there.


So, how is it that we'll resolve conflicts when the .db is modified
locally and upstream?

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Rick Bradley ([address removed]) from The Nashville Ruby on Rails / Agile Software Meetup Group.
To learn more about Rick Bradley, visit his/her member profile:
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here: Customer Service: [address removed]
632 Broadway New York NY 10012 USA


Our Sponsors

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy