Oh yeah deleting is bad.  Name has its own table to handle synonyms, language tuples; it's basically mirroring the dictionary structure almost verbatim.

On 13/08/2013, at 2:27 PM, Kent McNeill <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In api/src/main/resources/liquibase.xml:
> 
> > @@ -271,4 +271,27 @@
> >          </addColumn>
> >      </changeSet>
> >  
> > +    <!-- Adding id column to proposed concept response name -->
> > +    <changeSet author="cpm" id="cpm_2013-08-12-1">
> > +        <dropTable tableName="cpm_proposed_concept_response_name"/>
> I'm not entirely familiar with Liquibase, but this certainly looks like it will delete the existing table and recreate it, meaning that any existing data (both on people's local machines and in various environments, such as QA) would be lost. Is that the only option here (vs. adding -> migrating the column)? Also, I'm surprised that the "name" of the "proposed concept response" has its own table - surely the name seems more like an attribute than an entity, doesn't it? That being said, I'm not familiar with how we've modeled the domain, so I'm certainly not saying it's wrong - just surprising.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.