I'm ok with it. My plan was to clean up the migration branches tomorrow afternoon. I was also going to create a no-op migration called grizzly so that deployers could init their folsom db with "stamp folsom" and then run "upgrade grizzly"
mark On Feb 18, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm fine with this, even if fixing the migration script is something > which will the require the reviewers just to rubberstamp the patches. > We can start filing a bug with critical or high priority and ensure it > targets G-3. > > Salvatore > > On 18 February 2013 14:01, Akihiro MOTOKI <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Several patches contains db migration scripts and now we are merging several >> patches. >> It leads to branches in db migration scripts. In a usual process, we need to >> rebase >> the patch to catch up the latest, but it forces us to do another review and >> approval. >> >> How about having a special rule that we ignore branches in db migration >> scripts >> until G-3 branch cut and fix the branches of db migration scirpts >> just before/after the branch cut? >> >> Thanks >> Akihiro >> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
