Re: Transition to SQLAlchemy 1.1.x
Hi,
On 18/11/16 13:47, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 11:05 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>> [Rene Engelhard, 2016-11-18]
>>>> [...]
>>>> To sum up: it's IMO really too late for such an upload, and it shouldn't
>>>> be allowed, unless we don't care about OpenStack in Debian.
>>>
>>> Yup. Transition freeze was ~2 weeks ago, and this wasn't approved, so I've
>>> no idea why this should be allowed...
>>
>> that's because:
>> a) I consider SQLAlchemy new upstream releases stable now, so I dropped
>> the << dependency in latest upload
>> b) I wanted to upload it over a month ago. The << 1.1 dependency is
>> mostly in OpenStack packages so I contacted Thomas back then. He
>> asked me to wait 1 or 2 weeks because he's busy.
>
> Piotr,
>
> I urge you to stop distorting reality. I've told you I needed 2 weeks to
> check if that would work, and the result is: it does *NOT*. SQLA 1.1
> breaks at least Cinder, Barbican and SQLA-Migrate at build time, and for
> sure even more at runtime.
>
>> I agreed to upload to
>> experimental for now so that he can do tests and asked him to not complain
>> later about library transition freeze (sic!). He didn't report back any
>> problems except SQLAlchemy Migrate (about which he wanted to talk
>> with SQLAlchemy's upstream author during OpenStack conference IIRC).
>
> This is *NOT* true. This document has been made a few days after you
> asked me to test:
>
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/sqla-1.1-transition
>
> This clearly shows trace dumps for Migrate, Cinder, and Barbican.
Piotr, any comment on that?
I see in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=841339#10 you didn't
want to break openstack, so it'd be good to get that fixed or revert this change.
Thanks,
Emilio
Reply to: