On 11.06.2016 23:21, William Brown wrote:
On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 12:57 +0200, Martin Basti wrote:
On 10.06.2016 07:21, William Brown wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48878
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48878/0001-Ticket-48878-pep8-fixes-and-fix-rpm-to-build.patch
h
On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 16:53 -0400, Mark Reynolds wrote:
>
> On 06/13/2016 05:33 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >
> > Hi German,
> >
> > you are right that IPA is on the safe side, they maintain the lastÂ
> > used replicaID and when creating a server instance only a higherÂ
> > replicaid is used, a
On 06/13/2016 05:33 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
Hi German,
you are right that IPA is on the safe side, they maintain the last
used replicaID and when creating a server instance only a higher
replicaid is used, also when a server is removed, the removal triggers
a cleanallruv, either from the
Hi team,
please, review my new patch:
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48832
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48832/0001-Ticket-48832-CI-test-fix-ticket-failures.patch
Thanks,
Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@lists.fedoraproje
Hi German,
you are right that IPA is on the safe side, they maintain the last used
replicaID and when creating a server instance only a higher replicaid is
used, also when a server is removed, the removal triggers a cleanallruv,
either from the script or by the topology plugin (>4.3).
This is
Hi William,
I think this case is covered in IPA. I have never seen a new replica added
with the same former ID of an old one.
The former ruvs are not cleaned automatically, though, in current versions
and it's not a very severe issue now. There are also ipa commands to list
and clean the ruvs.
I
