cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release candidate 4.4.4
Date Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:02:33 GMT
Sounds reasonable to me.

-- 
Erik

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If no objections I will reset the default to 4.4.1 (the lowest required
> version) include Rafaels pr for kvm/centos packaging and create a new rc.
>
> Op ma 1 jun. 2015 om 11:54 schreef Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > So we will have to include an update in every release and we will
> probably
> > forget about that pretty soon.
> >
> > Op ma 1 jun. 2015 om 11:49 schreef Remi Bergsma <remi@remi.nl>:
> >
> >> I'd say, as a default: 4.4.0 will be nice for any 4.4.x release, and
> 4.5.0
> >> for 4.5.x etc. This is also close to what was hard-coded before.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Remi
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-06-01 11:33 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Guess we'll be making a new rc. The value can be 0.0.0 for my part, it
> >> must
> >> > be an operator decision to set the MinVRVersion if it must be higher.
> It
> >> > will always be an upgrade matter and any seeded template should be
> >> accepted
> >> > as per the installation notes. Of course the other side of the issue
> is
> >> > whether a version will work at all. The operator can create a version
> of
> >> > the template with their own versioning scheme, however. I should be
> >> writing
> >> > all this in another {DISCUSS]-thread.
> >> >
> >> > cancelling the RC to add code for Bruno's requirement.
> >> >
> >> > Op ma 1 jun. 2015 om 08:35 schreef Milamber <milamber@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Please note: I my case, there isn't an upgrade, I have the issue
> with
> >> > > 4.4.3 or 4.4.4 fresh installation (out of the box, from git tag
> >> > > 4.4-RC20150529T2004)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 01/06/2015 07:22, Erik Weber wrote:
> >> > > > If it means that all upgrades are unable to do VR related tasks
(
> >> > > starting
> >> > > > VMs for one.. ), I'd call that regression and redo.
> >> > > > Relying on all our users to do manual fixing just because we
don't
> >> want
> >> > > to
> >> > > > call off the RC is bad IMHO.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

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