On 2010-09-03 00:24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:34:50PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>> Comments? Fears? Enhancements?
> I always like simplifications.
> I cannot judge the overall impact of this change, but I guess you guys
> will have figured out the consequences.
> It feels like with a single table we're going back to a flat data store,
> yet this time it's a smart database rather than an entries file we have
> to parse.
> Having only a single table to deal with might make it a bit easier
> to fix wrecked databases, should that ever happen.
> Neels told me liked the idea, too.
yes, I +1 the single table. I kept thinking 'this needs to be simpler' but
had not sat down to think it out. You guys figured it out.
Depending on what is needed, we can then slightly modify one and the same
SQL query to get either BASE, WORKING, the layers in-between or
the-topmost-layer. I like.
> And that's about all I can say about this :)
Received on 2010-09-03 17:48:51 CEST