justtheory

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by justtheory 9mo ago

   Yes. YES! That's the idea. :-)
2. 2.▲
   by justtheory 9mo ago

   I will never un-see it now, tbh
3. 3.▲
   by justtheory 9mo ago

   LOL
4. 4.▲
   by justtheory 9mo ago

   Ooh, neat idea!
5. 5.▲
   by justtheory 12y ago

   Please file a bug report. https://github.com/theory/sqitch/issues .
6. 6.▲
   by justtheory 13y ago

   What might such a thing look like? Part of the reason I like my proposal is because it's just a generic server URI, so deeply familiar to nearly all developers. And for that format, it's the GET query string that allows for additi
7. 7.▲
   by justtheory 13y ago

   Yes, but for convenience (and compatibility with other proposals), I think it would be okay for a given implementation to recognize well-known engines and treat them as valid DB URIs even in the absence of a <code>db:</code&gt
8. 8.▲
   by justtheory 13y ago

   Will do. Is this thread a good place to get back to you guys if/when a WG is set up? Would likely be after the US holidays…
9. 9.▲
   by justtheory 13y ago

   Thank you, I will do that!
10. 10.▲
    by justtheory 13y ago

    That was one of the precedents I looked at, but I should definitely touch base with Heroku to see if they have any suggestions, too.
11. 11.▲
    by justtheory 13y ago

    This blog post is soliciting feedback on the general idea before I go and do the work of submitting a formal RFC. For all I know, someone could have shot it down. Just think of this as step 1 toward the development of an RFC.
12. 12.▲
    by justtheory 13y ago

    I would be okay with having just one one, though in principal I don't see much difference.