[openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sqlalchemy-migrate/0.9.8 I wanted to get a release out before dependency freeze for liberty. This is just a bug fix release, mostly to get the py34 job voting on the repo. Change log: mriedem@ubuntu:~/git/sqlalchemy-migrate$ git log --oneline --no-merges 0.9.7..0.9.8 5cf4071 Update URLs in documentation 1384e90 Add VerNum.__index__() for Python 3 support fb55b01 Fixes usage function for Py3 8252703 Unblock migrate (py26 and py3* testing issues) -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 8/31/2015 1:57 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sqlalchemy-migrate/0.9.8 I wanted to get a release out before dependency freeze for liberty. This is just a bug fix release, mostly to get the py34 job voting on the repo. Change log: mriedem@ubuntu:~/git/sqlalchemy-migrate$ git log --oneline --no-merges 0.9.7..0.9.8 5cf4071 Update URLs in documentation 1384e90 Add VerNum.__index__() for Python 3 support fb55b01 Fixes usage function for Py3 8252703 Unblock migrate (py26 and py3* testing issues) And I broke stable/kilo: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-gate/+bug/1490740 0.9.8 should have been 0.10.0 given the dependency updates, I didn't even think of that. I'll have to cap migrate <0.9.8 in stable/kilo g-r...damn. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 2015-08-31 15:59:27 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: [...] > I'll have to cap migrate <0.9.8 in stable/kilo g-r...damn. Given that PBR only handles 3-component version numbers, what will you tag the next sqlalchemy-migrate security backport to kilo with? Could we tag 0.10.0 now, backport a revert in a stable/kilo branch of it to the state of 0.9.7 and then tag that as 0.9.9? -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 2015-08-31 21:18:33 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2015-08-31 15:59:27 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: > [...] > > I'll have to cap migrate <0.9.8 in stable/kilo g-r...damn. > > Given that PBR only handles 3-component version numbers, what will > you tag the next sqlalchemy-migrate security backport to kilo with? > Could we tag 0.10.0 now, backport a revert in a stable/kilo branch > of it to the state of 0.9.7 and then tag that as 0.9.9? Slightly simplified since it looks like sqlalchemy-migrate only has a master branch at the moment... 1. tag 0.9.7 as 0.9.9 2. tag 0.9.8 as 0.10.0 3. introduce a stable/kilo version cap of <0.10.0 in requirements -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 8/31/2015 4:18 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-31 15:59:27 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: [...] I'll have to cap migrate <0.9.8 in stable/kilo g-r...damn. Given that PBR only handles 3-component version numbers, what will you tag the next sqlalchemy-migrate security backport to kilo with? Could we tag 0.10.0 now, backport a revert in a stable/kilo branch of it to the state of 0.9.7 and then tag that as 0.9.9? I've released 0.10.0: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sqlalchemy-migrate/0.10.0 I have a patch up to g-r on stable/kilo to block 0.9.8 and cap at <0.10.0: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219027/ I don't think we need to revert that change. sqlalchemy-migrate doesn't have a stable/kilo branch, but if/when we need one, I'd create it from the 0.9.7 tag. I also pushed a change to the infra-manual docs to remind me from being dumb in the future: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219030/ -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 2015-08-31 21:23:01 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Slightly simplified since it looks like sqlalchemy-migrate only has > a master branch at the moment... > > 1. tag 0.9.7 as 0.9.9 > > 2. tag 0.9.8 as 0.10.0 > > 3. introduce a stable/kilo version cap of <0.10.0 in requirements Er, actually swap around #2 and #3 there, wait until the requirements cap merges to tag 0.10.0 and you can avoid prolonging the breakage. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 2015-08-31 16:23:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: > I've released 0.10.0: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sqlalchemy-migrate/0.10.0 With an intermediate 0.9.9 you could have avoided leaving things broken while requirements gets updated. Consider that a "revert" of tagging. > I have a patch up to g-r on stable/kilo to block 0.9.8 and cap at <0.10.0: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219027/ Would have been nice to get that merged first with a "revert" of the 0.9.8 tag (per above). > I don't think we need to revert that change. sqlalchemy-migrate doesn't > have a stable/kilo branch, but if/when we need one, I'd create it from the > 0.9.7 tag. Sure, and tag it... what? There's nothing higher than 0.9.7 which wouldn't require yet another change to the requirements cap in kilo (and subsequent propagation). > I also pushed a change to the infra-manual docs to remind me from being dumb > in the future: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219030/ Thanks, +2! -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] sqlalchemy-migrate 0.9.8 released
On 8/31/2015 4:30 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2015-08-31 16:23:14 -0500 (-0500), Matt Riedemann wrote: I've released 0.10.0: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/sqlalchemy-migrate/0.10.0 With an intermediate 0.9.9 you could have avoided leaving things broken while requirements gets updated. Consider that a "revert" of tagging. I have a patch up to g-r on stable/kilo to block 0.9.8 and cap at <0.10.0: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219027/ Would have been nice to get that merged first with a "revert" of the 0.9.8 tag (per above). I don't think we need to revert that change. sqlalchemy-migrate doesn't have a stable/kilo branch, but if/when we need one, I'd create it from the 0.9.7 tag. Sure, and tag it... what? There's nothing higher than 0.9.7 which wouldn't require yet another change to the requirements cap in kilo (and subsequent propagation). I also pushed a change to the infra-manual docs to remind me from being dumb in the future: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219030/ Thanks, +2! Good points, we should have talked in IRC since I didn't see this until after doing the 0.10.0 tag, otherwise tagging 0.9.8 as 0.10.0 and 0.9.7 and 0.9.9 would have fixed things w/o the g-r sync. :) mtreinish made the same point when I asked him to review the g-r change in kilo. I guess I was only thinking of moving forward with the 0.10.0 for liberty and then blacklist 0.9.8 - act as if it never happened. That still requires the syncs to happen, which sucks, but lesson learned (hopefully). The next release on a stable/kilo branch for sqla-migrate would be 0.9.9. It will be a bit weird, but I think that's what it'd have to be. -- Thanks, Matt Riedemann __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
