Hi Zoran, The following are the additional comments on #1625.patch:
1. All the patches published are backward compatible(Is there an upgrade path from 4.7 to 5.0)? If Yes, then i have following comments: 2. In the process of middleware upgrade, if the newly ungraded node, the services other than IMM will try to read "scAbsenceAllowed" and see that the attribute does not exist, which case newly upgraded node does not join the cluster. 3. If the default value is set to 0 for scAbsenceAllowed flag when all the nodes are upgraded, and again to use the scAbsenceAllowed feature the cluster has to be restarted, because the scAbsenceAllowed can be set at the start of the cluster. Thanks, Neel. On Wednesday 17 February 2016 03:50 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Summary: imm: move immloadd and immpbed to node director package in > opensaf.spec [#1625] > Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1625 > Peer Reviewer(s): Neelakanta, Mahesh > Pull request to: Zoran > Affected branch(es): default(5.0) > Development branch: default(5.0) > > -------------------------------- > Impacted area Impact y/n > -------------------------------- > Docs n > Build system n > RPM/packaging n > Configuration files n > Startup scripts n > SAF services y > OpenSAF services n > Core libraries n > Samples n > Tests n > Other n > > > Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > --------------------------------------------- > > changeset 4a911d7c0c05fc7308b2c02a15a1804d2813ef7d > Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:47:18 +0100 > > imm: move immloadd and immpbed to node director package in opensaf.spec > [#1625] > > > Complete diffstat: > ------------------ > opensaf.spec.in | 4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > Testing Commands: > ----------------- > > > Testing, Expected Results: > -------------------------- > Test OpenSAF installation with RPM > > > Conditions of Submission: > ------------------------- > Ack from Neelakanta and Mahesh > > > Arch Built Started Linux distro > ------------------------------------------- > mips n n > mips64 n n > x86 n n > x86_64 n n > powerpc n n > powerpc64 n n > > > Reviewer Checklist: > ------------------- > [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!] > > > Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > > ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries > that need proper data filled in. > > ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > > ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > > ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > > ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. > > ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > > ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > > ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > > ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. > > ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes > like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > > ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > > ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > too much content into a single commit. > > ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > > ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. > > ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded > commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > > ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication > of what has changed between each re-send. > > ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. > > ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > > ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > the threaded patch review. > > ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results > for in-service upgradability test. > > ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series > do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
