<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Easy Guide To Using Migrations in Rails</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/18/using-migrations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/18/using-migrations/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:54:05 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bert_a</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/18/using-migrations/comment-page-1/#comment-824398</link>
		<dc:creator>bert_a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=3105#comment-824398</guid>
		<description>Thank you very much!  I thought I did something wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you very much!  I thought I did something wrong.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madpilot</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/18/using-migrations/comment-page-1/#comment-824308</link>
		<dc:creator>madpilot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=3105#comment-824308</guid>
		<description>bert_a: You must be running Rails 2.1 or higher, as this is the new way the migration numbering works. That large number is a timestamp, which stops the problem that occurs when two developers create a new table separately and end up with clashing migration numbers.

I&#039;m not aware of a plugin that reverts it (That doesn&#039;t mean it doesn&#039;t exist though!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>bert_a: You must be running Rails 2.1 or higher, as this is the new way the migration numbering works. That large number is a timestamp, which stops the problem that occurs when two developers create a new table separately and end up with clashing migration numbers.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not aware of a plugin that reverts it (That doesn&#8217;t mean it doesn&#8217;t exist though!)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bert_a</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/18/using-migrations/comment-page-1/#comment-824220</link>
		<dc:creator>bert_a</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:19:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=3105#comment-824220</guid>
		<description>Simply Rails 2 (and all of the other rails books I have) shows the migration file naming convention is
001, 002, etc

When I ran script/generate model User, the migration file was named:
20081110174511_create_users.rb

Why does it have this complex number instead of 001? Is there a way to
redo this and get the simpler name?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Simply Rails 2 (and all of the other rails books I have) shows the migration file naming convention is<br />
001, 002, etc</p>
<p>When I ran script/generate model User, the migration file was named:<br />
20081110174511_create_users.rb</p>
<p>Why does it have this complex number instead of 001? Is there a way to<br />
redo this and get the simpler name?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
