Open Stack

> >> From: "Doug Hellmann" <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>
> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List"
> >> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:21:14 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone] re-ordering of schema
> >> migrations
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> 
> >>
> >> Yeah. Let's not do that, though. Let's just add new migrations as
> >> necessary. That way each migration is tested, and after it is
> >> known
> >> to work
> >> it is not changed to something different that has to be re-tested.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think Keystone has reached this point either. At some point
> > though the number or migrations becomes unwieldy and compacting
> > things may make more sense though.
> 
> And to clarify, we have already done this a couple of times for nova:
> once for Folsom and again for Grizzly.  In Grizzly we're up to 159,
> but the migrate repo starts with a single migration to get up to 133.

Yeah, so I mentioned this nova practice of consolidating adjacent
migrations around major releases, as an acceptable change.

However, if I understood Doug correctly, he's raising this approach as
a potential issue that should be discontinued.

Doug - just to clarify, it's not the compaction per se that's potentially
problematic for trunk-chasers, more the risk that in manually compacting
multiple scripts some regression will creep in due to human error?

Cheers,
Eoghan
 
> --
> Russell Bryant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>