Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • That's what I would be looking for - something independent of the database. Contrast with an in-situ version control that is not immune to a faulty piece of code corrupting the whole database including the version history. Commented Feb 1, 2011 at 19:27
  • +1 This approach gives fine granularity but still the same safety of controlling the whole database stage outside of the database itself. Safety because the database itself isnt used to version control itself - it could get corrupted, rather this is done externally. Fine granularity because each change can be recognised rather than a complete snapshot containing everything. Also because this is a working solution - it must be some feet to get the "undo" side of a change working. Commented Feb 1, 2011 at 19:33