# Is there a better way to use migrations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 5, 2007, 5:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-there-a-better-way-to-use-migrations/91151 "2007-04-05T05:52:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/David_Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 5:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-there-a-better-way-to-use-migrations/91151/1 "2007-04-05T05:52:48Z")
I really like the migrations that Rails offers. However, I am wondering if I am missing an easier way to manage them. I have tried both of the methods suggested in AWDWR… I have employed the method of keeping all changes to a specific model in a single migration file, but end up constantly rolling back the version and then reloading every time I want to make changes to that specific table. To me it seems that migrations should never be rolled back for any reason. I guess it’s nice to have the “down” method, but I don’t see a lot of use for it unless you only want to step back from the most recent migration. Stepping back more than one version removes changes that I almost always still want to keep. So that leads me to the method of adding migration after migration without regard for organizing the models. However, that soon becomes a bit of a mess. I think I’m looking for the best of both worlds. Would it not be easier and more natural for the migrations for each model to be separated into folders, much like the folder structure of the views? Within each folder the numbering would start from 000 and the overall schema and schema table would track the schema version per model. I’m sure that this would cause another host of problems. Or can this already be done and I’m missing it? Best Regards, David Baldwin ---
**Author:** ![David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/David_Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 2:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-there-a-better-way-to-use-migrations/91151/2 "2007-04-05T14:52:38Z")
On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:52 PM, David Baldwin wrote: > reason. I guess it’s nice to have the “down” method, but I don’t see > separated into folders, much like the folder structure of the views? > Within each folder the numbering would start from 000 and the overall > schema and schema table would track the schema version per model. I’m > sure that this would cause another host of problems. Or can this > already be done and I’m missing it? > > Best Regards, > David Baldwin First, let me point out the big (biggest?) problem with your idea: How do you keep the migrations for two models in sync when you add a new relation? Say when you add a Pet model to your Person with has\_many :pets and a Pet belongs\_to :person. You’d have a pets/ 000\_create migration and a people/027\_add\_pets migration and then how would you know to roll back a version? I tend to work with a single migration and may roll it backward and forward a few times (with some manual cleanup 😉 as I’m working out something new. However, once it is checked in it doesn’t change. If I have to add another field the next day, a new migration is the way to go. There have been about a dozen times that I’ve considered writing a task to allow “rake db:migrate:down” or “rake db:migrate VERSION=-1”, but so far it hasn’t caused enough pain to be more than a ‘thought’. -Rob Rob B. [http://agileconsultingllc.com](http://agileconsultingllc.com) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@David\_Baldwin](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/David_Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/is-there-a-better-way-to-use-migrations/91151/3 "2007-04-05T17:41:07Z")
I’m not sure I completely understand, but think that it is likely that I don’t have enough experience with all of the issues that could arise. I should mention that I, up to this point, have not typed any relationship DDL statements into the migrations. I rely solely on the ruby model relationship to manage foreign keys even though I have heard this is a no-no. At any rate, I am saying that with this method there would never, ever be a rollback…only revisions that overwrite the old. The folder structure would simply keep things more organized. Also, this really hasn’t caused me much pain either. I’m just trying to consider how things would work in a team environment in the future. Best Regards, David Baldwin