On 10/10/2014 06:10 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On 09/10/14 23:44, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Matt Riedemann
>> <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> The sqlalchemy-migrate project is basically maintenance mode and
>>> the core team [1] is kind of a weird mix of people - all great
>>> people I'm sure, but I think it's more a team of people that
>>> stepped up when OpenStack took over the project and said they'd
>>> babysit it but it's pretty idle.
>>> Given we have oslo.db now, and sqlalchemy-migrate is all DB
>>> goodies, can we just have the oslo.db core team [2] own
>>> sqlalchemy-migrate now too?
>>> Here are the sqlalchemy-migrate open reviews:
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/sqlalchemy-migrate,n,z
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/186,members
>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/admin/groups/331,members
>> If the oslo.db team wants to participate, that’s obviously fine,
>> but I don’t think we want to just add everyone in bulk. AIUI, the
>> team’s goal is to get the migration stuff in oslo.db working with
>> alembic so we can stop using sqlalchemy-migrate.
> Till that time, we're left with the library used by multiple projects.
> I feel it's hard to get any review in meaningful time for the library,
> so if moving the library under the oslo.db tent will help it move, I'm
> both hands for that.
> /Ihar

I'm not sure adding core reviewers would help, but I agree we have a
maintenance issue with sqlalchemy-migrate. I've seen useful patches
staging without core reviewer answers. I'm myself a core there, but I
don't think I have the needed level to do good reviews.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to