4 ms·
Curious why you'd recommend that. It seems to me that it costs you something (convenience of standard VC practice on code) and gains you little. I'd recommend
by benmos 11y ago
Curious why you'd recommend that. It seems to me that it costs you something (convenience of standard VC practice on code) and gains you little.
I'd recommend checking out the linked presentation above - for things like stored procs you have the option of installing multiple versions simultaneously (e.g. under different names or 'Schemas') - obviously you can't do that for the main schema itself. This is why I think a hybrid approach makes more sense.
- eterm 11y agoIt's something I've seen working in a few places, but I'll take your recommendation and review the slides for a better approach. You're right that this approach does lose some of the benefits of version control but then typically the SP schema changes are very closely linked to table schema changes anyway.