Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3318804
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 17, 20262026-05-17T22:44:59+00:00 2026-05-17T22:44:59+00:00

Now that Rails has timestamped migrations , the single version number at the top

  • 0

Now that Rails has timestamped migrations, the single version number at the top of /db/schema.rb seems pointless. Sometimes the version number ends up incorrect when dealing with multiple developers or multiple branches.

Does Rails even utilize that :version parameter anymore?

And is there any harm in it being incorrect (as in: it doesn’t reflect the timestamp of most recently applied commit)?

Example:

ActiveRecord::Schema.define(:version => 20100417022947) do
  # schema definition ...
end
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-17T22:45:00+00:00Added an answer on May 17, 2026 at 10:45 pm

    Actually, the version is much more important than this. The code you’ve cited is actually only a small part of what assume_migrated_upto_version does. The real effect of the migration version is that all prior migrations (as found in the db/migrate directory) are assumed to have been run. (So yes, it does what the function name suggests.)

    This has some interesting implications, particularly in the case where multiple people commit new migrations at the same time.

    If you version your schema.rb, which is what the Rails team recommends, you’re okay. You’re 100% guaranteed to have a conflict (the schema version), and the committing/merging user has to resolve it, by merging their changes and setting the :version to the highest of the two. Hopefully they do this merge correctly.

    Some projects choose to avoid this continual conflict issue by keeping the schema.rb out of version control. They might rely solely on migrations, or keep a separate version-controlled copy of the schema that they occasionally update.

    The problem occurs if someone creates a migration with a timestamp prior to your schema.rb’s :version. If you db:migrate, you’ll apply their migration, your schema.rb will be updated (but retain the same, higher :version), and everything is fine. But if you should happen to db:schema:load (or db:reset) instead, you’ll not only be missing their migration, but assume_migrated_upto_version will mark their migration as having been applied.

    The best solution at this point is probably to require that users re-timestamp their migrations to the time of their merge.

    Ideally, I would prefer if schema.rb actually contained a list of applied migration numbers rather than an assume-up-to-here :version. But I doubt this will happen — the Rails team seems to believe the problem is adequately solved by checking in the schema.rb file.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Now that Rails 3.0 beta has been released, should I spend time building my
Now that .NET v3.5 SP1 has been released (along with VS2008 SP1), we now
Now that Silverlight 2 has finally shipped. I'm wondering if anyone has put together
Now that Rails 3 beta is out, I thought I'd have a look at
Now that most of the major browsers support full page zoom (at present, the
Now that I know C++ I want to get into desktop application that have
Now that LINQ to SQL is a little more mature, I'd like to know
Now that it's clear what a metaclass is , there is an associated concept
Now that everyone is talking about MVC, I notice that the business rules are
Now that I've finnaly moved to doing some development/support work for Windows 2008 I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.