Open Stack

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Dean Troyer <dtroyer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Hesketh <joshua.hesketh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The question now is whether or not to continue running. Is there still
>> value in running turbo-hipster? It uses significant resources and it feels
>> that developers have learned the lessons it was designed to teach.
>>
>
> Is there any value in running turbo-hipster as a periodic job across
> multiple releases?  One common request from operators is to be able to
> upgrade directly from, say, kilo to mitaka or newton.  I know there are
> other factors involved in that (APIs, objects, etc), the question is if
> this is a necessary/useful component of testing that upgrade path?
>

No I don't think there is value. Once a migration is in the code base it's
very difficult to change it in any non-idempotent way. Some deployments run
very close to master and fixing a past migration would mean maintaining
users with diverged databases.



>
> dt
>
> --
>
> Dean Troyer
> dtroyer at gmail.com
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161006/ffa5a7b2/attachment.html>