Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-25 Thread Mike Bayer
If Neutron is ready for more Alembic features I could in theory begin work on https://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/alembic/issue/167/multiple-heads-branch-resolution-support .Folks should ping me on IRC regarding this. On Sep 24, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-24 Thread Kevin Benton
If these are just feature branches and they aren't intended to be deployed for long life cycles, why don't we just skip the db migration and enable auto-schema generation inside of the feature branch? Then a migration can be created once it's time to actually merge into master. On Tue, Sep 23,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-24 Thread Salvatore Orlando
Relying again on automatic schema generation could be error-prone. It can only be enabled globally, and does not work when models are altered if the table for the model being altered already exists in the DB schema. I don't think it would be a big problem to put these migrations in the main

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-24 Thread Eugene Nikanorov
Apparently I've mistakenly though that feature branch will form separate optional component. If it will eventually be a part of neutron - then it's fine. Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.com wrote: Relying again on automatic schema generation

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-24 Thread Kevin Benton
Yeah, it's my understanding that feature branches are just going to be used for large code changes that are too hard to manage as strings of dependent gerrit reviews. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Apparently I've mistakenly though that feature

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-23 Thread Henry Gessau
Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi neutron and lbaas folks. Recently I briefly looked at one of lbaas proposed into feature branch. I see migration IDs there are lined into a general migration sequence. I think something is definitely wrong with this approach as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-23 Thread Doug Wiegley
Hi Eugene, Just my take, but I assumed that we’d re-sequence the migrations at merge time, if needed. Feature branches aren’t meant to be optional add-on components (I think), nor are they meant to live that long. Just a place to collaborate and work on a large chunk of code until it’s ready

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Migrations in feature branch

2014-09-23 Thread Brandon Logan
Well the problem with resequencing on a merge is that a code change for the first migration must be added first and merged into the feature branch before the merge is done. Obviously this takes review time unless someone of authority pushes it through. We'll run into this same problem on rebases