On 07/03/2013 07:26 AM, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Boris Pavlovic <bo...@pavlovic.me> wrote: >> >>> Question: >>> Why we should put in oslo slqlalchemy-migrate monkey patches, when we are >>> planing to switch to alembic? >>> >>> Answer: >>> If we don’t put in oslo sqlalchemy-migrate monkey patches. We won't be >>> able to work on 7 point at all until 8 and 10 points will be implemented in >>> every project. Also work around 8 point is not finished, so we are not able >>> to implement 10 points in any of project. So this blocks almost all work in >>> all projects. I think that these 100-200 lines of code are not so big price >>> for saving few cycles of time. >> >> We've talked in the past (Folsom summit?) about alembic, but I'm not >> aware of anyone who is actually working on it. Is someone working on >> moving us to alembic? If not, it seems unfair to block database work >> on something no one is actually working on. > > I've started working on a non-alembic migration path that was discussed > at the Grizzly summit. > > While alembic is better than sqlalchemy-migrate, it still requires long > downtimes when some migrations are run. We discussed moving to an > expand/contract cycle where migrations add new columns, allow migrations > to slowly (relatively speaking) migrate data over, then (possibly) remove > any old columns.
I think if you're working on a non-alembic plan and boris is working on an alembic plan, then something is going to be unhappy in the not-too-distant future. Can we get alignment on this? _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev