Rohit, is this really needed in 4.3? We are throwing away our agreed
policies on db changes here. When talking on customers that kind of
masquerades the upgrade dilemma they have with a minor version in a
tiny version.
@Hari I'll find some time to add the 442to443 path
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rohit, is this really needed in 4.3? We are throwing away our agreed
policies on db changes here. When talking on customers that kind of
masquerades the upgrade dilemma they have with a minor version in a
tiny
Hari, I added the 443 upgrade path, feel free to commit on the 4.4 branch.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Rohit Yadav bhais...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rohit, is this really needed in 4.3? We are throwing away our
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
(Updated Nov. 27, 2014, 9:22 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/#review63196
---
Ship it!
+1
LGTM, if any of the other designated reviewers don't
On Nov. 27, 2014, 10:15 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1
LGTM, if any of the other designated reviewers don't object let's merge
this on master/4.5; I've already picked/fixed this for 4.3 branch.
Hari - thanks for the patch, I encourage you to use Github Pull Requests in
future which
On Nov. 27, 2014, 10:15 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1
LGTM, if any of the other designated reviewers don't object let's merge
this on master/4.5; I've already picked/fixed this for 4.3 branch.
Hari - thanks for the patch, I encourage you to use Github Pull Requests in
future which
On Nov. 27, 2014, 10:15 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1
LGTM, if any of the other designated reviewers don't object let's merge
this on master/4.5; I've already picked/fixed this for 4.3 branch.
Hari - thanks for the patch, I encourage you to use Github Pull Requests in
future which
On Nov. 27, 2014, 10:15 a.m., Rohit Yadav wrote:
+1
LGTM, if any of the other designated reviewers don't object let's merge
this on master/4.5; I've already picked/fixed this for 4.3 branch.
Hari - thanks for the patch, I encourage you to use Github Pull Requests in
future which
If this contains db upgrade code, where did this go in 4.3? In the
review request I see changes to 442to450 upgrade files so this should
not go in 4.3 or 4.4. What am I missing?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Rohit Yadav bhais...@apache.org wrote:
On Nov. 27, 2014, 10:15 a.m., Rohit Yadav
ok, so that would go in 442to443?
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Rohit Yadav bhais...@apache.org wrote:
Daan,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
If this contains db upgrade code, where did this go in 4.3? In the
review request I see changes to
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com
wrote:
ok, so that would go in 442to443?
Yes, but do you plan to do a 4.4.3? The whole debate around maintaining 4.3
vs 4.4 comes down to stakeholder's interests, you've shared that you may
not want to put a lot of efforts
I dont like the idea of release manager cherry-picking/backporting the
fixes to the release branches.
As a community we are supporting past two releases. ie) at this point we
have to support 4.3 and 4.4
As a developer/contributor, if I feel a bug is relevant for 4.3 I should be
committing it to
Hi Rajani,
I've already started a thread on user/dev ML around LTS releases, we should
have discussion there.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Rajani Karuturi raj...@apache.org wrote:
I dont like the idea of release manager cherry-picking/backporting the
fixes to the release branches.
As a
Hi,
This patch was only intended to put in 4.5 and master and later it was back
ported to 4.3.
If you can help me adding the upgrade path from 4.4.2 to 4.4.3, I’ll put the PR
for back porting to 4.4.3
Thanks,
Harikrishna
On 27-Nov-2014, at 8:59 pm, Rohit Yadav
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/#review62957
---
I tried to merge it on 4.5/master, there were few issues. There is
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/#review62958
---
LGTM.
- Rohit Yadav
On Nov. 25, 2014, 6:07 a.m., Harikrishna
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
(Updated Nov. 25, 2014, 6:07 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
(Updated Nov. 10, 2014, 10:18 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and Jayapal
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
(Updated Nov. 10, 2014, 10:20 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Jayapal
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
(Updated Aug. 11, 2014, 9:24 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and Jayapal
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/#review50172
---
Looks GTM, but we'll wait for Jayapal to test/review it.
- Rohit
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/#review40646
---
please update or submit this review request. It will be discarded
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/17941/
---
Review request for cloudstack and Jayapal Reddy.
Bugs: CLOUDSTACK-6075
24 matches
Mail list logo
