cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Date Fri, 18 Jul 2014 04:31:50 GMT
Well, maybe, we are not even far of from it. call 'master' 'develop'
and create a new 'master'. next make sure every body develops in a
feature branch. also call x.y-forward hotfix-x.y. Don't bet your life
this approach is going to save our world. What would really help is if
everybody would really study the post and become an RM themselves.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mike Tutkowski
<mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> I see, Daan - thanks for the clarification.
>
> This is probably another good reason why we should seriously consider
> implementing the branching approach Sebastien recommended here:
>
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
>> don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
>> the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
>> suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
>> people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
>> from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
>> of 4.4 is not very useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>> > Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
>> > branch.
>> >
>> > A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry
>> picked
>> > to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
>> >
>> > Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into
>> 4.4.1
>> > (assuming such a release happens).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
>> >> remove them.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put
>> in
>> >> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in
>> 4.4.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > -Nitin
>> >> >
>> >> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>> >> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>> >> >>sneak it's way into the release:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> >> >>   CONSTRAINT
>> >> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>> >> >>FOREIGN KEY
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>> >> >>`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>> >> >>CASCADE
>> >> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>> >> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed
to
>> >> >>the end user';
>> >> >>+
>> >> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>> >> >>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>> >> >>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy
id',
>> >> >>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>> >> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>> >> >>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>> >> >>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>> >> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>> >> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>+
>> >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>> >> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>> >> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>> >> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE
KEY
>> >> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >><amogh.vasekar@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere.
But
>> >> >>>deploydb
>> >> >>> went fine on 4.4
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Amogh
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the
resulting
>> >> >>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> >> >>>><daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >>>>> <amogh.vasekar@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those
in the
>> morning
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>> Daan
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>--
>> >> >>>>Daan
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>Daan
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daan
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Mike Tutkowski*
>> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> > o: 303.746.7302
>> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*



-- 
Daan

Mime
View raw message