On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Mathieu Mitchell
wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-04-19 11:29 PM, Tan, Lin wrote:
>
>> I agree this is reasonable to support all these cases in “cold upgrades”
>> but in supports-rolling-upgrade (live upgrade in another word) case it is
>> different and complicated and not ne
B.R
Tan
[1] https://review.openstack.org/299245
From: Devananda van der Veen [mailto:devananda@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 5:12 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] upgrade support between which versions of
ironic?
Thanks
for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] upgrade support between which versions of
ironic?
Thanks for starting the thread, Ruby.
We need to first establish a grenade job to test "cold upgrades" and assert the
supports-upgrade tag. I believe Ironic meets all the cr
Thanks for starting the thread, Ruby.
We need to first establish a grenade job to test "cold upgrades" and assert
the supports-upgrade tag. I believe Ironic meets all the criteria for that
tag except:
- having a job that tests it (so, you know, it might be broken and I might
be wrong)
- having op
Hi,
Currently, ironic doesn't support ("live", "online", "rolling", or
minimal-downtime) upgrades between named versions of ironic. (Where "named
version" is the final release or stable release that is associated with a
development cycle). So for example, Liberty -> Mitaka release.
We've been wor
