Open Stack

On 2/23/21 8:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 12:39:47 -0600 (-0600), Ben Nemec wrote:
>> On 2/23/21 11:42 AM, Jay Bryant wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2021 11:11 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> [...]
>>>> I may have things mixed up now, but I thought I was told a few
>>>> years ago now that sqlalchemy-migrate was deprecated and that
>>>> projects should be migrating to alembic now.
>>>
>>> This was my understanding as well.  Has that position changed?
>>
>> Quite the contrary, oslo.db just deprecated migrate support:
>> https://opendev.org/openstack/oslo.db/commit/fc855875236fd3bf760237fc64092f4a9d864fcb
>>
>> This came up in the keystone meeting a few weeks ago because the
>> deprecation broke their test jobs. Unfortunately, from looking at
>> other projects' migration patches it doesn't appear to be trivial
> [...]
> 
> For a bit of history, the SQLAM maintainers decided to abandon the
> project, so it was forked into StackForge (remember StackForge?) by
> https://review.openstack.org/36723 in mid-2013. The commit message
> at the time suggested, "The overall project plan is to transition to
> alembic." I guess 8 years isn't enough warning to get that to
> happen.

Right!

Though there was the plan to move to Alembic, as mentioned in this
thread, the transition may not be easy.

That original author happened to be a Debian developer, and I was the
one telling the list about the situation. And that's how I became a core
reviewer of the project, even if I don't even know how to write a
program that would SQLAM.

We still have Nova, Cinder, Heat, and probably others that still use
SQLAM, so it's probably not the best idea to abandon it just yet... :)

Therefore, I'm asking again: someone must step up to maintain SQLAM.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)