cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ACS41] RC Blocker issue. Help Needed!
Date Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:10:11 GMT
The DB version is set to 4.1.0 on my dev systems, so I think somehow the
SNAPSHOT was added to the db version only when we hit 4.1.1.

I think it makes sense to roll back to your 4.1.0 if/when possible, that
way if we need work on the RC we can without rolling forward and back each
time the vote fails. Then increment to 4.1.1 only when we have passing
artifacts.


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 03:01:30PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> > So if I understand correctly, when the vote fails it will auto revert so
> we
> > can work on the 4.1 branch again? For the moment it's kind of stuck in
> > limbo, but maybe that's how it's meant to be. I suppose we work on the
> > branch from the commit where the RC was cut, and then apply any patches
> > after the revert?
>
> Frankly I made a mistake I think, but perhaps it's the right thing
> anyway.  Until the VOTE is cancelled or passed, we're sort of stuck.
> This isn't a tool thing, as much as it's how I ended up doing things.
>
> Yes, you can work from the commit-sh that I published (keep in mind that
> it's set to 4.1.0 with no SNAPSHOT), or the one right before that (which
> has the SNAPSHOT).
>
> If we want, I can get it back to 4.1.0-SNAPSHOT easily...
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Chip Childers <
> chip.childers@sungard.com>wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:50:52PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> > > > Why is the HEAD of 4.1 branch now on 4.1.1?  Don't we need a stable
> 4.1.0
> > > > completed first, before we break 4.1? I ran into several issues today
> > > with
> > > > this, and then finally now there's not a database upgrade from 4.1.0
> to
> > > > 4.1.1-SNAPSHOT.
> > >
> > > I advanced it, but will revert and then re-advance it when the VOTE
> > > closes.  I figured that a history of 4.1.0-SNAPSHOT > 4.1.0 >
> > > 4.1.1-SNAPSHOT was the most logical thing to do.
> > >
> > > That being said, yes, we need to get the DB upgrade in place I guess.
> > > Should I revert the 4.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 4.1.0-SNAPSHOT?
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message