Hi Eric, thanks for your reply. As it was not top priority to migrate all the old data to the new version I installed a fresh, empty 3.0 instance and restored the old 1.7 instance to an at least working state for archive purposes.
Kind regards, Martin Am Mittwoch, 5. Juni 2019 19:43:12 UTC+2 schrieb Eric Johnson: > > > On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 7:58:29 AM UTC-7, Martin Großhauser wrote: >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> Indeed, there was version 1.7.27 from EPEL installed. But the version >> running according to the web interface was 1.7.14. Also in the SQL-table >> siteconfig_siteconfiguration I see a string '1.7.14', which looks to me >> like the version. Uninstalling the RPM version and reinstalling 2.0.20 via >> easy_install with an rb-site upgrade afterwards did not resolve my issue. >> >> Maybe there is a version conflict in the current setup? >> >> I did not maintain this setup in the past, so I do not know much about >> what happened before. Internal documentation shows there was at least an >> unfinished upgrade to 1.7.27 with an inconsistent state in between. Version >> was rolled back to 1.7.14 then, but maybe some artifacts remained, which >> are causing the current trouble. >> > > Oh, this is a critical detail. There are two paths that I can think of > here. > > Path 1) Install a fresh copy of your current installed version (1.7.14) > into a fresh database, and compare that database schema to the one for your > production install. If they differ, repeat the exercise with 1.7.27, and > see how that differs. It may be that you've got most of the changes for > 1.7.27, but for a few, and might be able to apply those. > > At one point in the distant past of our ReviewBoard use (1.X), I did run > into problems with a mismatch between the database layout and the version > of ReviewBoard. It had to do with a similar situation - an aborted upgrade. > I thought I had rolled back. In the end, I had to manually bring the > database forward to the expected version. Once I did that, I haven't had > problems since. However, I've been a die-hard developer for a long time, > this path might not be for you. Digging into SQL, and pouring over the > Python code of RB didn't deter me (it is pretty good code, as open source > goes. It is almost like each commit gets reviewed ;-) ). > > Path 2) ReviewBoard is a great tool, and BeanBag deserves $$ for the work > they do making it. Perhaps pay for support from the company help untangle > the issue you've got? It may save you a lot of time, and be worth every > dollar spent. > > Eric. > > > >> >> Am Montag, 3. Juni 2019 15:28:47 UTC+2 schrieb Stephen Gallagher: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:25 AM Martin Großhauser >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I'm trying to upgrade ReviewBoard to 2.0.20, but site-upgrade fails >>> with output: >>> > >>> > # rb-site upgrade /var/www/reviewboard >>> > Rebuilding directory structure >>> > Updating database. This may take a while. >>> > >>> > The log output below, including warnings and errors, >>> > can be ignored unless upgrade fails. >>> > >>> > ------------------ <begin log output> ------------------ >>> > Creating tables ... >>> > Upgrading Review Board from 1.7.14 to 2.0.20 >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for auth. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for contenttypes. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for accounts. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for attachments. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for changedescs. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for diffviewer. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for hostingsvcs. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for reviews. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for scmtools. >>> > There are unapplied evolutions for site. >>> > Project signature has changed - an evolution is required >>> > Installing custom SQL ... >>> > Installing indexes ... >>> > Installed 0 object(s) from 0 fixture(s) >>> > The stored evolutions do not completely resolve all model changes. >>> > >>> > Run `./manage.py evolve --hint` to see a suggestion for the changes >>> required. >>> > >>> > The following are the changes that could not be resolved: >>> > The application markup has been deleted >>> > In model attachments.FileAttachment: >>> > In field 'file': >>> > Property 'max_length' has changed >>> > In model hostingsvcs.HostingServiceAccount: >>> > Field 'hosting_url' has been added >>> > The model auth.Message has been deleted >>> > In model reviews.FileAttachmentComment: >>> > Field 'extra_data' has been added >>> > In model reviews.ReviewRequest: >>> > Field 'depends_on' has been added >>> > In model reviews.ReviewRequestDraft: >>> > Field 'depends_on' has been added >>> > In model accounts.Profile: >>> > Field 'timezone' has been added >>> > Field 'open_an_issue' has been added >>> > Field 'extra_data' has been added >>> > In model diffviewer.DiffSet: >>> > Field 'base_commit_id' has been added >>> > In model diffviewer.DiffSetHistory: >>> > Field 'last_diff_updated' has been added >>> > In model diffviewer.FileDiff: >>> > Field 'diff_hash' has been added >>> > Field 'parent_diff_hash' has been added >>> > Field 'diff64' has been added >>> > Field 'parent_diff64' has been added >>> > Field 'parent_diff' has been deleted >>> > Field 'diff' has been deleted >>> > CommandError: Your models contain changes that Django Evolution cannot >>> resolve automatically. >>> > >>> > OS-Version is: >>> > CentOS release 6.7 (Final) >>> > >>> > Django packages are: >>> > # yum list installed |grep -i django >>> > Django14.noarch 1.4.21-1.el6 >>> @epel >>> > python-django-evolution.noarch 1:0.6.9-4.el6 >>> @epel >>> > python-django-pipeline.noarch 1.2.24-2.el6 >>> @epel >>> > >>> > Do you have any idea what's going wrong here? I'm grateful for any >>> ideas how to solve this problem. >>> > >>> > Extra question: I expected an upgrade to version 3. Instead I got >>> 2.0.20. Why is that? >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > Martin >>> > >>> >>> I maintain the packages for EPEL. ReviewBoard is abandoned on EPEL 6 >>> because versions newer than 2.0 are incompatible with the set of >>> packages available in RHEL 6. If you want to go to 3.x and use the RPM >>> packages, you need to be on RHEL 7. >>> >>> Otherwise, you need to go the pip route, but I'm not sure that will >>> work with the extremely old version of python on RHEL 6. >>> >> -- Supercharge your Review Board with Power Pack: https://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ Want us to host Review Board for you? Check out RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ Happy user? Let us know! https://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Review Board Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard/93282f23-c78e-4158-866e-ae24b60b8d5c%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
