search

ruckus / ruckusing-migrations

Database migrations for PHP ala ActiveRecord Migrations with support for MySQL, Postgres, SQLite
Other
506 stars 95 forks source link

Add foreign key #157

Open brutuscat opened 9 years ago

brutuscat commented 9 years ago

@bbwebconsult added the ability to add/remove FK in the MySQL driver. Since we don't have much exp with other DBs, we welcome commits for the other drives too!

garex commented 9 years ago

This is can not be merged as it breaks PHP 5.2 compatibility.

brutuscat commented 9 years ago

@garex php 5.2 is not supported anymore. Nobody "serious" should be using it actually... https://secure.php.net/supported-versions.php

Even php 5.3 & 5.4 are also EOL...

garex commented 9 years ago

@brutuscat It's not an argument. It's supported in WordPress and WordPress is a huge part of market. Nobody serious should throw out away customers because of caprice.

This migration tool is only one that supported PHP 5.2. In other case you should switch to https://phinx.org/

All mature and serious developers thinks about backward compatibility.

Also all serious developers MUST know what is composer.json and what does means this string: "php": ">=5.2.0". It means includes and not more than. Just use 5.2 version or use those "singularize" method only with copyright notice or better avoid it. This is all what should need.

brutuscat commented 9 years ago

@garex I don't want to get into this discussion, but wordpress should upgrade. It is not responsible from their part to maintain compatibility with a php version no longer maintained. I will definitely migrate if your argument (you say it is not, I guess you own the truth!) is what @ruckus maintainer thinks too.

ruckus commented 9 years ago

Hi everyone - firstly @brutuscat - thank you for your contribution, very much appreciated.

Honestly I am on the fence about this. I have not used PHP in a couple of years and have not used this library in a bit longer. Thus, I dont have a horse in this race. Giving that WP does represent a large user base there is some slight sense in supporting it. But on the flip-side, a deprecated version is a deprecated version.

It comes down to this: I'm not in a position to maintain this project and possibly deal with any issues that might arise in maintaining backwards compatibility. If someone else wanted to step in and assume control and ownership, maybe thats the best route forward.

garex commented 9 years ago

@ruckus I can take it. The only reason I've choose your lib is 5.2 compatibility. Also in this concrete feature there is no big problems to make it 5.2 compatible.