Open Stack

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> One of the features we had on the roadmap for Grizzly was the ability to
> backport DB migrations to stable/grizzly after the release if necessary.
>  The blueprint became a Havana blueprint, because the implementation
> turned out to just reserve a range of migrations numbers at the
> beginning of Havana development.
>
>     https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/backportable-db-migrations
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/23759/
>
> I wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this when doing reviews of
> future db migrations.  It means that we must make sure that migrations
> added for Havana are idempotent.  That way it should be safe to backport
> them.  When someone upgrades from a stable release that included
> backportable migrations, they're going to get the same migration again
> at a higher number.

This sounds reasonable to me. We did talk at the summit about Alembic
as well, but I'm not sure anyone actually did anything after that. Are
we still thinking of moving ORM at some point in the future?

Michael