Hi Michael, thanks for the reply. Do you think we should display an appropriate message (eg. “please specify the source datastore in order to copy checkpoints”) and then break the migration or proceed?
Regards, Tomek -- Tomek Rękawek | Adobe Research | www.adobe.com [email protected] > On 13 Mar 2017, at 09:55, Michael Dürig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I'm actually more concerned with the (consequences of) the fix for OAK-5920: > if we run into this issue upgrade will now simply skip the affected > checkpoint. Currently this will AFAIK trigger a reindex of the repository > when started. Future checkpoints might be less resilient though. In any case, > even a reindex might be way to expensive and a better option in this case > might be to re-run the migration with the real datastore. I think upgrade > should present this option to the user. > > Michael > > > On 12.03.17 18:30, Tomek Rekawek wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I’d like to backport the OAK-5920 to branch 1.6. Apparently, under some >> circumstances the checkpoint migration in the oak-upgrade doesn’t work. It’s >> a best-effort procedure anyway, so if the exception occurs, the new patch >> will catch it, log a warning, clean up the incomplete state and carry on. >> >> Michael D., Alex D. - you were involved in implementing and testing this >> feature. Could you send your ACKs before I’ll backport it to the 1.6 branch? >> >> Regards, >> Tomek >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
