Re: [UDD] Suggested table: release_order
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 04:47:56PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> I fully understand your use case, in fact it is the same the PTS has for
> sorting the lines of the various releases in all package pages. Still, I
> wanted to point out that that order is somehow arbitrary, for non
> released suites (which you seem to agree upon).
Yes.
> > So I try to reiterate
> >
> > CREATE TABLE releases (
> > release text, /* keep name column as in other tables */
> > releasedate date,
> > sort int,
> > PRIMARY KEY (releasename)
> > );
>
> I'm OK with this.
>
> As an alternative suggestion that just occurred to me, we can actually
> define a new datatype for releases (as we did for package versions)
> which is an enumeration sorted as we please. That way "<" ordering would
> work automagically. I'm not sure it will be worth, though.
We just had this and it was dropped for the reasons I mentioned in my
initial mail. I do not remember whether I had the dicsussion in privat
or in a mailing list with Lucas. In short: The concept was dropped
because a new release means dropping several tables and recreating
them after changing the release type. (Lucas might like to explain
in detail - or browse SVN history.) And yes, defining a type would
be the most elegant solution for *our* use case.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: