Comments
Sort by recent activity
Six is not enough.
The "open location from disk" is cumbersome (see below)
The "File|Recent" is ugly because they are all in the same format: [image] \Documents and Settings\abertrand\My Documents\SQL Compare\Projects\192 168 3 202 dbname v 192 168 5 205 dbname dd-mm-yyyy.hh-nn-ss.msms.SCP
It is very hard to tell these apart visually. And if I need a project that is not in the most recent 6 (I have about 30 right now), I have to browse for it.
The dialog was better because it had ALL of my projects. This was very handy. Scrolling, and identifying a project visually, is much easier and more fun than navigating through a file browse dialog and then visually parsing these cryptic SCP file names. / comments
Six is not enough.
The "open location from disk" is cumbersome (see below)
The "File|Recent" is ugly because they are all in the same format:\Documents and Settings\abertrand\My Documents\SQL Compa...
Well I think avoiding the re-compare is beneficial, regardless of whether it takes seconds or minutes. Your scenario doesn't motivate me to change my opinion. / comments
Well I think avoiding the re-compare is beneficial, regardless of whether it takes seconds or minutes. Your scenario doesn't motivate me to change my opinion.
But why does REQUIRING a re-compare make the scenario better? / comments
But why does REQUIRING a re-compare make the scenario better?
Meaning you don't care if you have to re-compare? I think your opinion might change slightly if you had a bigger / more complex schema and the re-compare took minutes instead of seconds. [image] / comments
Meaning you don't care if you have to re-compare? I think your opinion might change slightly if you had a bigger / more complex schema and the re-compare took minutes instead of seconds.
Oh I agree the databases should not switch sides (and repeated that emphatically in another thread here). Just the directional arrow. / comments
Oh I agree the databases should not switch sides (and repeated that emphatically in another thread here). Just the directional arrow.
rtowne@smarsh.com wrote:
If you changed it so double clicking the arrow would swap the sides -- my first thoughts are that this would be more clumsy and would lead to more mistakes using the product than what you are trying to alleviate.
That's what the product does now (7.0). The change is very obvious... the arrow is huge and it becomes green instead of blue when facing the other direction. Anyway I am not advocating that double-click should continue working; I would be fine to have the double-click removed (though I doubt there are many cases of accidental double-clicks there). But having it back on the right-click context menu (which is how I use this functionality in the current product) would be much appreciated. / comments
rtowne@smarsh.com wrote:
If you changed it so double clicking the arrow would swap the sides -- my first thoughts are that this would be more clumsy and would lead to more mistakes using the pro...
The overhead can be anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes. It is just annoying to have to re-do it when I already did it upon opening the project; it just so happened that *this* time I wanted to go the other way, but that is not how the project was saved.
The use case is: sometimes schema changes are very organic, and so they follow the traditional dev -> qa -> test -> production migration; other times, they are a result of an emergency fix in production, and so the changes need to be back-potrted and fully tested once the emergency fix is proven. As I'm sure you're aware, we can't always follow the process to the letter; and up until now, I've been able to switch sync direction without needing to re-compare. Can I asked what changed that makes this not an option? Are you saving time in the general case by only determining in advance the changes required in one direction? (It's ok if you say yes to that answer. But if that's it, I'd love an option to pay for the extra work in advance if I want to.)
Another use case (that does not affect me personally right now) is synchronizing development schemas in two different environments (e.g. two developer machines). / comments
The overhead can be anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes. It is just annoying to have to re-do it when I already did it upon opening the project; it just so happened that *this* time I want...
Thanks for the honesty Michelle. Really kind of too bad, as I used that context menu quite often. :-( / comments
Thanks for the honesty Michelle. Really kind of too bad, as I used that context menu quite often. :-(
I'd actually prefer the error message. If the object is simply left out of the synchronization script, then it makes it hard for me to realize that it has been left out. Sometimes there is a four-part name hidden deep in the bowels of a stored procedure and it's not always going to be obvious that this object is being left out for that reason. / comments
I'd actually prefer the error message. If the object is simply left out of the synchronization script, then it makes it hard for me to realize that it has been left out. Sometimes there is a four...
I think both would be useful. It doesn't have to be very big text for the date itself, and then some visual clue, like a yellow star icon, or different colored text, for the newer object. http://sqlblog.com/files/folders/19478/download.aspx / comments
I think both would be useful. It doesn't have to be very big text for the date itself, and then some visual clue, like a yellow star icon, or different colored text, for the newer object.http://sq...