Skip to content

Settings and activity

1 result found

  1. 530 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    under review  ·  Kendra responded

    Thanks for this suggestion and for the many comments and upvotes. I realize that this is a pain point.

    I have a few shorter-term workarounds to summarize as well as some information on the longer roadmap in this update. I know these shorter-term workarounds aren’t perfect (I summarize the pros and cons), but I’m posting them as they may help a few folks.

    Workaround 1) When data changes to static data need to be made, use a “relink the table” pattern
    One can “cleanly rescript” a static data table in SQL Source Control by:

    • Unlinking the static data table
    • Committing
    • Relinking the static data table
    • Committing

    Pro: This works with the GUI and requires no special knowledge or comfort with TSQL. This may help folks with just a few static data tables.
    Con: This requires extra steps and results in extra commits in the history, which I realize can…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Gregory Kemp commented  · 

    Please please please please fix this!! I'm so tired of simple changes causing merge hell because of pointless row re-ordering!! I'll be bald soon if you don't fix it... Should be a very simple fix. If it was open source, many users could have probably put in a quick fix. It's literally the worst thing about SQL Source Control!

    Should just order by primary key, with no re-ordering based on what change was made. That would be the obvious design choice.

    Just noticed, even Steve Jones (who works for you) has a comment here complaining about it! Come on guys.

    Gregory Kemp supported this idea  ·