Re: [openstack-dev] [stable][mistral] Asking for stable branch policy exception

2017-10-18 Thread Brad P. Crochet
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:34 AM Renat Akhmerov 
wrote:

> Dougal,
>
> I forgot to mention that explicitly but, yes, #1 is needed only not to
> break the sequence of migrations. We can manually fix the migration number
> in #2 just for stable/pike but I somewhat don’t like the idea of having
> different migration numbers in different branches.
>
> It’s a good news that we’re not going to break TripleO.
>
> Thanks
>
>
My thought is take both. Not backporting the migration will break future
upgrades. We have literally been in this situation before.

Brad


>
> Renat Akhmerov
> @Nokia
>
> On 17 Oct 2017, 20:21 +0700, Dougal Matthews , wrote:
>
>
>
> On 17 October 2017 at 09:19, Renat Akhmerov 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have two patches in Mistral that we need to back port to stable/pike.
>> However, they are against of stable branch management policy because they
>> slightly change the DB schema. The patches are the following:
>>
>>1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512528/
>>2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512256/
>>
>>
>> #2 is a critically important fix that fixes a problem of decreasing
>> Mistral performance when DB becomes heavy (has lots of execution objects).
>> This is a blocker issue for us (Nokia) preventing us using Mistral in
>> production. It also seriously optimizes performance in general.
>>
>> So hereby I'm asking your advice on what we can do in this situation. Can
>> we merge these patches if we make sure that we don't break anyone in the
>> community? For example, TripleO.
>>
>
> As far as I am aware, this wont be a problem for TripleO. These patches
> are both additive (new db column and new db index).
>
> The first patch (512528) is only a candidate for backport to avoid
> breaking the migration history order, it isn't otherwise needed in Pike.
> How is this normally handled in other projects? i.e. we need to backport
> migration 24 to Pike, but 23 is in master only. I assume this problem has
> came up before and been solved, but I can't find any examples.
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Renat Akhmerov
>> @Nokia
>>
>> __
>> 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
>>
>>
> __
> 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
>
> __
> 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
>
-- 
Brad P. Crochet, RHCA, RHCE, RHCVA, RHCDS
Principal Software Engineer
(c) 704.236.9385
__
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] [stable][mistral] Asking for stable branch policy exception

2017-10-17 Thread Renat Akhmerov
Dougal,

I forgot to mention that explicitly but, yes, #1 is needed only not to break 
the sequence of migrations. We can manually fix the migration number in #2 just 
for stable/pike but I somewhat don’t like the idea of having different 
migration numbers in different branches.

It’s a good news that we’re not going to break TripleO.

Thanks

Renat Akhmerov
@Nokia

On 17 Oct 2017, 20:21 +0700, Dougal Matthews , wrote:
>
>
> > On 17 October 2017 at 09:19, Renat Akhmerov  
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We have two patches in Mistral that we need to back port to stable/pike. 
> > > However, they are against of stable branch management policy because they 
> > > slightly change the DB schema. The patches are the following:
> > >
> > > 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512528/
> > > 2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512256/
> > >
> > >
> > > #2 is a critically important fix that fixes a problem of decreasing 
> > > Mistral performance when DB becomes heavy (has lots of execution 
> > > objects). This is a blocker issue for us (Nokia) preventing us using 
> > > Mistral in production. It also seriously optimizes performance in general.
> > >
> > > So hereby I'm asking your advice on what we can do in this situation. Can 
> > > we merge these patches if we make sure that we don't break anyone in the 
> > > community? For example, TripleO.
> >
> > As far as I am aware, this wont be a problem for TripleO. These patches are 
> > both additive (new db column and new db index).
> >
> > The first patch (512528) is only a candidate for backport to avoid breaking 
> > the migration history order, it isn't otherwise needed in Pike. How is this 
> > normally handled in other projects? i.e. we need to backport migration 24 
> > to Pike, but 23 is in master only. I assume this problem has came up before 
> > and been solved, but I can't find any examples.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Renat Akhmerov
> > > @Nokia
> > >
> > > __
> > > 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
> > >
>
> __
> 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
__
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] [stable][mistral] Asking for stable branch policy exception

2017-10-17 Thread Dougal Matthews
On 17 October 2017 at 09:19, Renat Akhmerov 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have two patches in Mistral that we need to back port to stable/pike.
> However, they are against of stable branch management policy because they
> slightly change the DB schema. The patches are the following:
>
>1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512528/
>2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512256/
>
>
> #2 is a critically important fix that fixes a problem of decreasing
> Mistral performance when DB becomes heavy (has lots of execution objects).
> This is a blocker issue for us (Nokia) preventing us using Mistral in
> production. It also seriously optimizes performance in general.
>
> So hereby I'm asking your advice on what we can do in this situation. Can
> we merge these patches if we make sure that we don't break anyone in the
> community? For example, TripleO.
>

As far as I am aware, this wont be a problem for TripleO. These patches are
both additive (new db column and new db index).

The first patch (512528) is only a candidate for backport to avoid breaking
the migration history order, it isn't otherwise needed in Pike. How is this
normally handled in other projects? i.e. we need to backport migration 24
to Pike, but 23 is in master only. I assume this problem has came up before
and been solved, but I can't find any examples.



>
> Thanks
>
> Renat Akhmerov
> @Nokia
>
> __
> 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
>
>
__
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


[openstack-dev] [stable][mistral] Asking for stable branch policy exception

2017-10-17 Thread Renat Akhmerov
Hi,

We have two patches in Mistral that we need to back port to stable/pike. 
However, they are against of stable branch management policy because they 
slightly change the DB schema. The patches are the following:

1. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512528/
2. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/512256/


#2 is a critically important fix that fixes a problem of decreasing Mistral 
performance when DB becomes heavy (has lots of execution objects). This is a 
blocker issue for us (Nokia) preventing us using Mistral in production. It also 
seriously optimizes performance in general.

So hereby I'm asking your advice on what we can do in this situation. Can we 
merge these patches if we make sure that we don't break anyone in the 
community? For example, TripleO.

Thanks

Renat Akhmerov
@Nokia
__
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