Open Stack

I would absolutely agree that Openstack should not be in a hurry to actually *ship* with SQLAlchemy 2.0.  2.0 just came out, the release is going great, but Openstack would benefit from getting in the 2.0 game for real several months from now when the dust has settled.

as far as getting *ready* for SQLAlchemy 2.0 and adding 2.0 runs to testing (at least non-voting testing), that should be happening for all projects right now.  the biggest task here would be getting rid of sqlalchemy-migrate in all projects and dropping it from oslo.db.



On Thu, Feb 2, 2023, at 11:03 AM, Elõd Illés wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this topic up! As a release team member I tend to agree with Sean that this is a good candidate to be a community goal of 2023.2 Bobcat as we are too late to add this to 2023.1 Antelope release (given that in exactly 2 weeks we will have Antelope-3 milestone, which is Feature Freeze date).
> 
> Also, we had a good example with the same thing in Zed in the past, where a last minute change caused some trouble (and resulted conversations like this [1]) and people agreed to avoid this in the future if possible.
> So I think the best is to *NOT* accept Sqlalchemy 2.0.0 in this cycle (2023.1 Antelope).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Előd Illés
> irc: elodilles @ #openstack-release
> 
> [1] https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2022-October/030914.html
> 
> 
> *From:* Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2023 5:50 PM
> *To:* Mike Bayer <mike_mp at zzzcomputing.com>; openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org <openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org>
> *Cc:* stephenfin at redhat.com <stephenfin at redhat.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [all] Supporting SQLAlchemy 2.0 in OpenStack
>  
> On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 08:58 -0500, Mike Bayer wrote:
> > We started talking about SQLAlchemy 2.0 in Openstack most officially in August 2021:
> > 
> > https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2021-August/024122.html
> > 
> > Since then, lots of work has been done for SQLAlchemy 2.0 compatibility.  oslo.db master IIUC should be fully free of 2.0 deprecation warnings, this is the topic for that: https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:sqlalchemy-20+repo:openstack/oslo.db  however, sqlalchemy-migrate would need to be fully retired from it which hasn't happened yet.
> stephen who is alredy on cc has been driving most of the work to remvoign sqlalchmey-migrate
> nova and several other project move to alembic thanks to there work in  zed.
> 
> i would think moving nova and placment at least to SQLAlchemy 2.0 in bobcat would not be contoverital given the work that stephen and other have
> already been doing.
> 
> this would be good perhasp as a comunity goal
> 
> > 
> > For downstream projects, the vast majority of SQLAlchemy-related code, which is lots of session.query() calls, should not have to change except to the degree that string-based notation for object attributes is removed in favor of actual attributes, e.g. joinedload("networks") becomes joinedload(Machine.networks).
> > 
> > The SQLAlchemy 2.0 migration process is designed to be gradual and starts with building a 2.0 forwards-compliant application that runs under SQLAlchemy 1.4.  This process is documented at https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/changelog/migration_20.html#the-1-4-2-0-migration-path .   I think a lot of projects are already through this process and are now trying to run directly on the 2.0 release.
> > 
> ya if we have nto got there with nova/placment yet i think it something we can push for in the next release
> we do have the deprecation warnign mostly turn on and we try to fix them when they happen so its proably time to actully complete the move.
> >    
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023, at 8:02 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > SQLAlchemy 2.0 was released 5 days ago. IMO, we should start drawing a 
> > > plan to support it for Bobcat, and possibly backport patches for 
> > > Antelope. Note that I have no clue what his implies. Maybe Mike, you 
> > > could write about it? Has a lot of things changed?
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> > > 
> > >
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230202/b71cb59e/attachment.htm>