Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of pranav.saxena@citrix.com
 designates 203.166.19.134 as permitted sender)
From: Pranav Saxena <pranav.saxena@citrix.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Chip Childers
	<chip.childers@sungard.com>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] - Deletion of Users within the Admin account
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] - Deletion of Users within the Admin account
Thread-Index: 
 AQHONUIaGiOK47fWUEOu4la6/exYsZjOGdgA//977ICAAAGEAIAACyYAgBRlHECAAKWyIP//fO6AgACJAQD//3ulgAACO9cAAAAbuAAAABtrAAARKLmA
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:51:41 +0000
Message-ID: <2307598D4FCF004D81B2C8892AA9A91105358B@SINPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
References: <20130422203638.GL4888@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
 <CD9AEDFC.2891B%alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD9AEDFC.2891B%alena.prokharchyk@citrix.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

I second that ! we could leave it in master then .

-----Original Message-----
From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 2:10 AM
To: Chip Childers
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] - Deletion of Users within the Admin account

On 4/22/13 1:36 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:33:32PM -0700, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
>> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:25:53PM +0000, Pranav Saxena wrote:
>> >> If we don't , then the only trade-off is the deletion of the users=20
>> >>accounts won't be possible :) . IMHO , we should be allowing  that .
>> >>=20
>> >> I'll leave it upto you to take a final go at it .
>> >
>> >Tell you what...  why don't you go ahead and back port it.  If it=20
>> >happens to get into 4.1.0, then great.  Otherwise it'll be in 4.1.1.
>> >
>>=20
>> Chip, the fix includes the DB upgrade - adding the "default" field to =20
>>user/account DB tables. I've already made changes to 4.1-4.2 upgrade=20
>>path  on master. If we backport the fix to 4.1 branch, where the db=20
>>upgrade  steps should go? As we don't know yet whether it becomes=20
>>4.1.1 or 4.1.0  yet.
>>=20
>> -Alena.
>>=20
>>=20
>
>Hmmm...  well we have been trying to *not* do schema changes for=20
>bug-fix releases.
>
>If things worked this way for 4.0.x, I don't see any reason to jump on=20
>pushing this into 4.1.x ATM.  Perhaps we just leave it in master then.
>
>Others?
>


+1. Especially when it includes DB changes.