Skip to content

Settings and activity

28 results found

  1. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  2. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  3. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  4. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  5. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  6. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    I'd happily accept an option to revert to SQL Tab History rather than SQL History. The "upgrade" is infuriating, search is very poor (it finds part of a word, but not the whole word - or vice versa, seemingly at random), and the UI is very poor by comparison.

    SC supported this idea  · 
  7. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC shared this idea  · 
  8. 15 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    Not only this but renaming queries, maybe a way back from the advanced search (which I dislike intensely, I'd rather have the search in place), a much easier way to delete single items, a feature to only keep the latest version in a history, so much more is needed, SQL History feels like such a big step backwards

  9. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  10. 10 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    under review  ·  2 comments  ·  SQL Prompt  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    If the options included "most recent version only" that would be perfect

    SC supported this idea  · 
  11. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Data Compare  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC shared this idea  · 
  12. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Compare  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  13. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SQL Data Compare  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    SC shared this idea  · 
  14. 40 votes
    Vote

    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)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  15. 530 votes
    Vote

    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
    SC commented  · 

    With over 400 votes I can't understand why this hasn't been looked at yet?

    Ordering by the primary key would be fairly simple and it would help a lot. We have some tables with thousands of records in that we check in using SQL Source Control and we have a lot of problems without this feature.

    SC supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    Even if RedGate don't implement a merge function (which is desperately needed), just sorting the values in primary key order when sending scripts to TFS would be hugely helpful!

  16. 10 votes
    Vote

    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)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    This seems to be fixed now.

  17. 200 votes
    Vote

    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)
    Kendra responded

    While SQL Source Control does not currently provide a simple way to right click and ‘Undo’ static data changes on the ‘Commit’ screen as suggested, there is a workaround which may help some users.

    If you wish to revert the static data in the table to a previous version which you have committed, you can do this by viewing the history of commits for the object in SQL Source Control, and then launching SQL Data Compare to update the database.

    Please note that this workaround requires a license for Data Compare. More detail on how to do this are here: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc/common-tasks/update-to-a-revision-from-source-control

    SC supported this idea  · 
  18. 4 votes
    Vote

    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)
    SC shared this idea  · 
  19. 2 votes
    Vote

    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)
    SC supported this idea  · 
  20. 17 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    SC commented  · 

    I've put this as an idea under one of the other products as well but supporting this one simply because it would be useful.

    Also I definitely second Bob Vale's comment, that would be incredibly useful as well.

    SC supported this idea  · 
← Previous 1