Open Stack

+1 to getting the multiple repos in place.  Moving to Alembric later on in
H or even as the first commit of I should meet our goals to be on Alembric
in a reasonable timeframe.  This also allows us to ensure we aren't rushing
the work to get our migration repos over to Alembric.

I think that allowing the extensions to have their own repos sooner is
better, and if we end up with an extension that has more than 1 or 2
migrations, we have probably accepted code that is far from fully baked
(and we should evaluate how that code made it in).

I am personally in favor of making the first commit of Icehouse (barring
any major issue) the point in which we move to Alembric.  We can be
selective in taking extension modifications that add migration repos if it
is a major concern that moving to Alembric is going to be really painful.

Cheers,
Morgan Fainberg

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> I've been looking into Alembic support.  It seems that there is one thing
> missing that I was counting on:  multiple migration repos. It might be
> supported, but the docs are thin, and reports vary.
>
> In the current Keystone implementation, we have a table like this:
> mysql> desc migrate_version;
> +-----------------+-----------**---+------+-----+---------+---**----+
> | Field           | Type         | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
> +-----------------+-----------**---+------+-----+---------+---**----+
> | repository_id   | varchar(250) | NO   | PRI | NULL    |       |
> | repository_path | text         | YES  |     | NULL    |       |
> | version         | int(11)      | YES  |     | NULL    |       |
> +-----------------+-----------**---+------+-----+---------+---**----+
>
>
> Right now we only have one row in there:
>
>  keystone      | /opt/stack/keystone/keystone/**common/sql/migrate_repo |
>       0
>
>
> However, we have been lumping all of our migrations together into a singel
> repo, and we are just now looking to sort them out.  For example, Policy,
> Tokens, and Identity do not really need to share a database.  As such, they
> could go into separate migration repos, and it would keep changes to one
> from stepping on changes to another, and avoiding the continuous rebasing
> problem we currently have.
>
> In addition, we want to put each of the extensions into their own repos.
>  This happens to be an important time for that, as we have three extensions
> coming in that need SQL repos:  OAuth, KDS, and Attribute Mapping.
>
> I think we should delay moving Keystone to Alembic until the end of
> Havana, or as the first commit in Icehouse.  That way, we have a clean cut
> over point. We can decide then whether to backport the Extnesion migrations
> or leave them under sql_alchemy migrations. Mixing the two technologies
> side by side for a short period of time is going to be required, and I
> think we need to have a clear approach in place to avoid a mess.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.**org <OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**openstack-dev<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/20130725/f581cfa9/attachment.html>