[Pulp-dev] Is it time to commit our migrations?

[David Davis]

+1 to committing our migrations before the alpha. I like the idea of having
new migrations in the PR that involves model changes.

I don’t know what kind of conflicts should arise but the only time I think
we should consider recreating all the migrations is after we do a release
where we don’t support upgrades (e.g. the alpha release of Pulp 3.0).


David

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Austin Macdonald <austin at redhat.com> wrote:

> Today I filed and fixed https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3012, which is an
> issue related to creating the migrations in the right order. It is a
> temporary problem that we will have until we take the step of committing
> the migrations to version control.
>
> The reason migrations are not in git right now is that the models have
> changed often.
>
> Reasons to do this now:
> 1) Our models are more stable now.
> 2) We don't want teach our alpha users how to use django migration tools.
> 3) We permanently solve the migration order issue.
>
> If we do commit them, we will still be flexible to change our models. In
> the past, upgrading from an alpha or beta to a new alpha or beta is not
> supported, so I think it would be acceptable to blow away the migrations
> and create all new ones all the way up until 3.0 GA. In fact, it would be
> nice to have a minimal set of migrations at that time without any artifacts
> of our development up to that point.
>
> If everyone agrees that now is the time, how should we do it? It seems to
> me like we should include new migrations with each model change in the same
> PR. We start fresh only if there are conflicts or if we want to do a
> "fresh" release.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170914/fd3e1031/attachment.htm>