Open Stack

merge prop: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6847/
now has both required +2s. I'll wait a day or two to approve just in case
there are any lingering objections.

-tr3buchet

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Garbutt" <John.Garbutt at citrix.com>
> > To: "Dan Prince" <dprince at redhat.com>, "Vishvananda Ishaya" <
> vishvananda at gmail.com>
> > Cc: openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:56:44 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Openstack] database migration cleanup
> >
> > I may have missed this in the discussions, but does this impact on
> > upgrade?
> >
> > I am guessing you have tested Essex -> Folsom upgrade, but does this
> > affect people upgrading from any of the Essex milestones to Folsom?
>
> What this does is compact the pre-Essex (final) migrations into a single
> migration. Users of any of the Essex milestones would need to first upgrade
> to the final Essex release and then upgrade to Folsom.
>
> This seemed like a reasonable approach since most distributions release
> updates that contain the final releases anyway.
>
>
> > I guess the deeper question is which upgrade paths do we want to
> > maintain...
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
> > > openstack-bounces+john.garbutt=eu.citrix.com at lists.launchpad.net
> > > [mailto:openstack-bounces+john.garbutt=
> eu.citrix.com at lists.launchpad.net]
> > > On Behalf Of Dan Prince
> > > Sent: 02 May 2012 21:20
> > > To: Vishvananda Ishaya
> > > Cc: openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > > Subject: Re: [Openstack] database migration cleanup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvananda at gmail.com>
> > > > To: "Dan Prince" <dprince at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:14:25 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Openstack] database migration cleanup
> > > >
> > > > +1.  Might be nice to have some kind of test to verify that the
> > > > new
> > > > migration leaves the tables in exactly the same state as the old
> > > > migrations.
> > >
> > > Hey Vish,
> > >
> > > This is an outline of what I did to test MySQL and PostgreSQL to
> > > ensure the
> > > compact migration script generates *exactly* the same schemas as
> > > before:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.openstack.org/database_migration_testing
> > >
> > > As things stand both MySQL and PostgreSQL are exactly the same. I
> > > have
> > > some pending changes that I've found in the schemas that need to be
> > > fixed
> > > in Folsom... but the goal here was to replicate Essex with
> > > migration 082 so
> > > that is what I did.
> > >
> > > Sqlite has a few differences (indexes for example). How important
> > > is it that
> > > the Sqlite schema be exactly the same? Unit tests are passing.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Vish
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 26, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Dan Prince wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The OpenStack Essex release had 82 database migrations. As
> > > > > these
> > > > > grow in number it seems reasonable to clean house from time to
> > > > > time.
> > > > > Now seems as good a time as any.
> > > > >
> > > > > I came up with a first go at it here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/6847/
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is that we would:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Do this early in the release cycle to minimize risk.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Compact all pre-Folsom migrations into a single migration.
> > > > > This
> > > > > migration would be used for new installations.
> > > > >
> > > > > * New migrations during the Folsom release cycle would proceed
> > > > > as
> > > > > normal.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Migrations added during Folsom release cycle could be
> > > > > compacted
> > > > > during "E" release cycle. TBD if/when we do the next
> > > > > compaction.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Users upgrading from pre-Essex would need to upgrade to Essex
> > > > > first. Then Folsom.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this scheme would support users who follow stable
> > > > > releases
> > > > > as well as users who follow trunk very closely.
> > > > >
> > > > > We talked about this at the conference but I thought this issue
> > > > > might be near and dear to some of our end users so it was worth
> > > > > discussing on the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > What are general thoughts on this approach?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan (dprince)
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > > > Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > > > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120503/b458559a/attachment.html>