Sunday, July 31, 2011

Re: south vs nashvegas

I never heard of Nashvegas until your e-mail, and I've been using South
for years and it's been wonderful. I also met Andrew Godwin at DjangoCon
last year, and he's a genuinely nice and friendly guy.

So, assume that I'm biased. Having said that, here are my responses:

South is definitely not complicated to use. The documentation is very
good, and there aren't all that many features or options to memorize.

Nashvegas doesn't do backwards migrations at all and the database
migrations they do have are database-specific. Those two things alone
mean you can't confidently deploy to production knowing you can
roll-back, and you can't reliably develop on one DB and deploy on
another. Until that's corrected I don't see how Nashvegas is even an
option except for personal projects where you don't care if you take the
site down.

South has an active mailing list in which the core developer
participates and is very helpful.

The only "feature" that Nashvegas claims that South doesn't handle is a
whole project migration as opposed to individual apps. This is actually
not true. South allows you to put a requirement line in a migration that
indicates that it depends on a migration in another app. This, to me, is
not only "the whole project" but more modular and therefore better.

If you're using a version control system and working with other
developers, then any schema migrations, from raw SQL to South are going
to require communication among your group. That's completely unavoidable.

Incidentally, if you do use South and run into trouble, try the South
mailing list. I subscribe to it and will try to help out, if someone
doesn't beat me to it.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

No comments:

Post a Comment