Open Stack

On 11/01/2013 05:50 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> I also would not use migrate.  sqlalchemy-migrate is a dead upstream and
>> we (OpenStack) have had to inherit it.  For new projects, you should use
>> alembic.  That's actively developed and maintained.  Other OpenStack
>> projects are either already using it, or making plans to move to it.
> 
> This is something I wanted to dig into at the summit in fact, mostly
> because I'm not sure I agree... Sure migrate is now an openstack
> project, but so is olso and we're happy to use that. So I don't think
> it being abandoned by the original author is a strong argument.

I think it is.  If someone else is actively developing and maintaining
something that serves our needs, we should absolutely be using it
instead of something we have to maintain ourselves.  That leaves us to
focus on what's specific to OpenStack.  I mean, it's pretty much the
reason we have thousands of reusable software projects out there...

> Its not clear to me what alembic gives us that we actually want...
> Sure, we could have a non-linear stream of migrations, but we already
> do a terrible job of having a simple linear stream. I don't think
> adding complexity is going to make the world any better to be honest.

Let's assume it stays linear.  The above argument is still eonugh to
convince me to move.

> These are the kind of issues I wanted to discuss in the nova db summit
> session if people are able to come to that.

Sounds good.

-- 
Russell Bryant