> On May 2, 2013, 3:38 p.m., Chip Childers wrote: > > Before we apply this, I'm trying to get clarification as to the correct > > version # for the SSVM in 4.1. AFAIK, it's actually supposed to be 3.0.x > > still. The latest release notes (not the ones in the URL you mention) were > > edited to correctly match the 4.0.x series, since we are not updating the > > SSVM images as part of 4.1.0.
I noticed the version of systemvm for vmware in Release Notes has been changed to 3.0.5. (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=06371ba;hp=2dc278e98660f0cecb0e161c9c5540b5b2a39a9e) I think, the source code also need to be modified to deal with the version change from 3.0.0 to 3.0.5, or other later versions. - Wei ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10904/#review20080 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2013, 3:36 p.m., Wei Zhou wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10904/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 2, 2013, 3:36 p.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack and Chip Childers. > > > Description > ------- > > The version of systemvm of 3.* and 4.0.* is systemvm-kvm-3.0.0.(from > http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/Apache_CloudStack/4.0.2/pdf/Release_Notes/Apache_CloudStack-4.0.2-Release_Notes-en-US.pdf) > However, on cloudstack 4.1.0, the systemvm version is 4.1.0. (from > http://dissociatedpress.net/uploads/Apache_CloudStack-4.1.0-Release_Notes-en-US.pdf) > so the upgrade processing from 2.2.14 to 4.1.0 will abort at updateSystemVms > in Upgrade2214to30.java. > > > This addresses bug CLOUDSTACK-2303. > > > Diffs > ----- > > server/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao/Upgrade2214to30.java 8c4dbec > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10904/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Testing manually ok. > > > Thanks, > > Wei Zhou > >
