Re: New Procedurs With Version# In Name
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:13:34 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 11, 12:07 am, "jeffchi..._at_gmail.com" <jeffchi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> So when my developers need to make a change to a procedure, instead of
> just recompiling the procedure they want to create a new procedure
> named like sp_procedure2 and then use the new procedure in their
> They want to do this so that they don't mess up any other application
> that might be calling the same procedure. And then when they can get
> around to updating the other applications they will use the new
> procedure. I was wondering if anybody else does this and what you
> guys think. I am against it but I am getting overruled. My database
> will look confusing, source safe will be confusing, and now I have to
> maintain multiple procedures when something needs to change.
Jeff, I will join with the other posters who have made several fine suggestions and suggest you tell your developers that what they want is not the way code changes should be managed.
You need a combination of source code control and change control procedures in place that control the process by which code is marked for update, changed, tested, and promoted. A paper trail showing that these procedures are followed must be maintained.
You should also have an emergency change procedure documented.
HTH -- Mark D Powell -- Received on Thu Mar 11 2010 - 09:13:34 CST