New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Match each table to at most one config section #251

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Aug 26, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@memory

memory commented Jul 10, 2015

In re: #250

  • filter duplicate table entries out of table_names in get_tables_and_gsis()
  • use collections.OrderedDict to preserve the order of table
    configuration sections as we parse the config file
  • use ordereddict from PyPi if we are using python < 2.7

tcc-jenkins added some commits Jul 10, 2015

Match each table to at most one config section
- filter duplicate table entries out of table_names in get_tables_and_gsis()
- use collections.OrderedDict to preserve the order of table
  configuration sections as we parse the config file
- use ordereddict from PyPi if we are using python < 2.7
@memory

This comment has been minimized.

memory commented Jul 21, 2015

...thoughts?

@sebdah

This comment has been minimized.

Owner

sebdah commented Aug 5, 2015

@memory Thanks for your contribution. I think this makes sense. The problem for me is that it's breaking backwards compatibility (as some users current configuration will behave diffrently when this PR is merged).

My strategy for version numbers is that x.y.z:

  • x Major update, possibly breaking backwards compatibility
  • y New features
  • z Bug fixes and minor things

This would thus be an update to x meaning it would be part of dynamic-dynamodb version 2. No problem per se, but I want to wait with merging this until we can do a proper v2 release with the changes mentioned in #252.

@sebdah sebdah self-assigned this Aug 5, 2015

@sebdah sebdah added this to the 2.0.x milestone Aug 5, 2015

@memory

This comment has been minimized.

memory commented Aug 19, 2015

That seems valid -- it would definitely potentially break existing configurations. I will hold my breath for v2.0.0. :)

@sebdah sebdah merged commit 437ae4b into sebdah:master Aug 26, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment