Need core reviewers for sqlalchemy-migrate
radoslaw.piliszek at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 16:23:13 UTC 2021
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:51 PM Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> On 2021-02-28 16:46:13 +0100 (+0100), Radosław Piliszek wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:25 PM Thomas Goirand <thomas at goirand.fr> wrote:
> > > > The combo of Nova, Glance and Cinder patch series that I'm
> > > > proposing should get us a long way there and will serve as a
> > > > blueprint for other project, so there isn't really a reason
> > > > this can't happen in any healthy project over the next cycle.
> > >
> > > There's also Heat, that uses migrate, if I'm not mistaking. IMO
> > > that's also a core project.
> > >
> > > Appart from it, there's also:
> > > - Desginate
> > > - Senlin
> > > - Trove
> > >
> > > I don't think there's anyone else that still uses it, so that's
> > > 4 core projects, and 3 "less core" projects.
> > >
> > > I based my survey out of the Debian dependency list, hopefully
> > > that doesn't include a mistake.
> > It is pretty close!
> > See https://codesearch.opendev.org/?q=sqlalchemy-migrate&i=nope&files=requirements.txt&excludeFiles=&repos=
> > I caught Keystone, Murano and oslo.db too.
> You may want to double-check that they actually import it. Earlier
> in this discussion I performed a similar search just to get an idea
> for how widespread the problem is, and noticed that some projects
> still have cruft entries in their requirements.txt even though they
> don't actually use the library any longer.
Wise suggestion. I do not see, however, the search you mention.
Anyhow, I made the following two queries:
So Murano was a false positive.
But Keystone and oslo.db stay.
On the other hand, there are a few others as well which have not had
it declared (possibly due to oslo.db pulling it in).
* This is the point where I ask for guidelines of successful migration
PS: Apart from OpenStack, it seems StarlingX uses it.
More information about the openstack-discuss