On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Eli Mesika <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Martin Perina <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> recently [1], [2] were raised, but the main reason for those bugs was the >> we are no paying enough attention to consequences when doing backports. >> Below are two examples which we need to pay more attention to: >> >> 1. Database upgrade scripts naming and numbering >> - there's no problem if the same script has different name or number >> between y-streams (for example 4.3 and 4.2), but names and number need to >> match between z-streams >> - if we are going to do async release (for example 4.2.3.z) and we >> need to backport to async branch patch which includes db upgrade script, we >> need to make sure to align db scripts in branch from which next z-stream >> will be built (for example 4.2, patch [3] can be used as an example how to >> fix this issue) >> >> 2. Use the same name of database upgrade script when doing backports >> - when backporting some patches to z-stream branch please use the same >> db script name and change only db script number as needed, otherwise >> backports are quite confusing (for example [4] and [5]) >> >> >> Patch [3] fixes the situation, so when included into 4.2.4 build it >> should allow smooth upgrade from 4.2.3.z to 4.2.4, but users which already >> performed upgrade are in trouble. @Eli is there any way how we can force >> execution of db scripts, which were skipped due to the mess in names >> between 4.2.3.z and 4.2.4 to help users which have already broken database? >> > > ​unfortunately, those should be run manually or merge all to one > re-entrant script and add it as an additional upgrade script. > Sounds quite problematic as not all upgrade scripts are written in a re-entrant manner > > ​ > >> >> >> @Tal/@Piotr, could you please pay even more attention when merging >> patches containing db scripts to z-stream async branches (normal branch, >> for example ovirt-engine-4.2, should be fine, but ovirt-engine-4.2.3.z >> requires more attention)? I agree that developer who backports the patch >> should handle the situation (feel free to ask infra team if unsure about >> consequences), but you are the last safety check we have. >> >> Thanks a lot >> >> Martin >> >> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1583562 >> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1583664 >> [3] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/91874 >> [4] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/90695 >> [5] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/90698 >> >> >> -- >> Martin Perina >> Associate Manager, Software Engineering >> Red Hat Czech s.r.o. >> > >
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/ oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/IX64KBRMSB2LN36Z5VJGEWAHC7DWG32R/
