On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 14:14 -0600, John Griffith wrote:
Given that Cinder doesn't have anybody actively engaged in this other
than what's being proposed and worked on by Boris and folks, we'd be a
willing candidate for most of these changes, particularly if they're
accepted in Nova
Mark, John, Nikola,
Current in oslo we would like to put only 2 functions:
1) generic method for creating shadow table
2) generic method that the columns are same in shadow and main table
So migration that adds shadow table could be done after all other works,
when we finish improving of
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 14:15 +0200, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 05/07/13 14:26, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to explain very high level steps of our work:
1) Sync work with DB in all projects (We have what we have, let it be in
one place)
2) Refactor work with DB in one
Hi Mark, Nikola, David
Our work is not just in case of unifying. It improves the situation in all
project (not only in Nova).
I would like to say my opinion about DB Archiving also ;)
Let start from the problem, abstract solution, current solution, and why
this solution is ok.
*) Problem.
On 05/07/13 14:26, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to explain very high level steps of our work:
1) Sync work with DB in all projects (We have what we have, let it be in
one place)
2) Refactor work with DB in one place (not independently in all projects)
So I understand
Hi all,
I would like to explain very high level steps of our work:
1) Sync work with DB in all projects (We have what we have, let it be in
one place)
2) Refactor work with DB in one place (not independently in all projects)
So I understand that our code around DB is not ideal, but let it be in
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
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 6:50 AM, 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
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
On 07/02/2013 10:50 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
###
Goal
###
We should fix
Hi Monty,
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?
As I said before, we are preparing our DB code to move from
sqlalchemy-migrate to something
###
Goal
###
We should fix work with DB, unify it in all projects and use oslo
One small addition I would suggest is a step to remove the unused
sqlalchemy-migrate code once this is all done. That's my main concern
with moving it to Oslo right now.
Also, is this a formal blueprint(s)? Seems like it should be.
-Ben
On 2013-07-02 12:50, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
13 matches
Mail list logo
