You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Amogh Vasekar <am...@citrix.com> on 2014/07/17 23:19:50 UTC
[ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Hi Daan,
Can you please cherry-pick c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
This is for CLOUDSTACK-6358.
Thanks,
Amogh
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Well, maybe, we are not even far of from it. call 'master' 'develop'
and create a new 'master'. next make sure every body develops in a
feature branch. also call x.y-forward hotfix-x.y. Don't bet your life
this approach is going to save our world. What would really help is if
everybody would really study the post and become an RM themselves.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mike Tutkowski
<mi...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> I see, Daan - thanks for the clarification.
>
> This is probably another good reason why we should seriously consider
> implementing the branching approach Sebastien recommended here:
>
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
>> don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
>> the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
>> suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
>> people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
>> from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
>> of 4.4 is not very useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>> <mi...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>> > Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
>> > branch.
>> >
>> > A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry
>> picked
>> > to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
>> >
>> > Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into
>> 4.4.1
>> > (assuming such a release happens).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
>> >> remove them.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put
>> in
>> >> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in
>> 4.4.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > -Nitin
>> >> >
>> >> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>> >> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>> >> >>sneak it's way into the release:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> >> >> CONSTRAINT
>> >> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>> >> >>FOREIGN KEY
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>> >> >>`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>> >> >>CASCADE
>> >> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>> >> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>> >> >>the end user';
>> >> >>+
>> >> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>> >> >>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>> >> >>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>> >> >>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>> >> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>> >> >>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>> >> >>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>> >> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>> >> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>+
>> >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>> >> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>> >> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>> >> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>> >> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>> >> >>>deploydb
>> >> >>> went fine on 4.4
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Amogh
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>> >> >>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> >> >>>><da...@gmail.com>
>> >> >>>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the
>> morning
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> --
>> >> >>>>> Daan
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>--
>> >> >>>>Daan
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>Daan
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Daan
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *Mike Tutkowski*
>> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> > o: 303.746.7302
>> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
--
Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
I see, Daan - thanks for the clarification.
This is probably another good reason why we should seriously consider
implementing the branching approach Sebastien recommended here:
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
> don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
> the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
> suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
> people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
> from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
> of 4.4 is not very useful.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
> <mi...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
> > branch.
> >
> > A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry
> picked
> > to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
> >
> > Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into
> 4.4.1
> > (assuming such a release happens).
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
> >> remove them.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put
> in
> >> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in
> 4.4.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > -Nitin
> >> >
> >> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
> >> >>
> >> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
> >> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
> >> >>sneak it's way into the release:
> >> >>
> >> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
> >> >> CONSTRAINT
> >> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
> >> >>FOREIGN KEY
> >>
> >>
> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
> >> >>`)
> >> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
> >> >>CASCADE
> >> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >> >>
> >> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
> >> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
> >> >>the end user';
> >> >>+
> >> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
> >> >>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> >> >>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
> >> >>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
> >> >>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
> >> >>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
> >> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
> >> >>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
> >> >>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
> >> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
> >> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
> >> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >> >>+
> >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
> >> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
> >> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
> >> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
> >> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
> >> >>
> >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >> >><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
> >> >>>deploydb
> >> >>> went fine on 4.4
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Amogh
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
> >> >>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
> >> >>>><da...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >> >>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the
> morning
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> --
> >> >>>>> Daan
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>--
> >> >>>>Daan
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Daan
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
of 4.4 is not very useful.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
<mi...@solidfire.com> wrote:
> Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
> branch.
>
> A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry picked
> to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
>
> Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into 4.4.1
> (assuming such a release happens).
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
>> remove them.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
>> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Nitin
>> >
>> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>> >>
>> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>> >>sneak it's way into the release:
>> >>
>> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> >> CONSTRAINT
>> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>> >>FOREIGN KEY
>>
>> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>> >>`)
>> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>> >>CASCADE
>> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >>
>> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>> >>the end user';
>> >>+
>> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>> >>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>> >>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>> >>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>> >>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>> >>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>> >>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>> >>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >>+
>> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>> >>>deploydb
>> >>> went fine on 4.4
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Amogh
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>> >>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>> >>>>
>> >>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> >>>><da...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Daan
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>--
>> >>>>Daan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Daan
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
--
Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Mike Tutkowski <mi...@solidfire.com>.
Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
branch.
A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry picked
to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into 4.4.1
(assuming such a release happens).
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
> remove them.
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Nitin
> >
> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
> >>
> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
> >>sneak it's way into the release:
> >>
> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
> >> CONSTRAINT
> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
> >>FOREIGN KEY
>
> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
> >>`)
> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
> >>CASCADE
> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >>
> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
> >>the end user';
> >>+
> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
> >>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> >>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
> >>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
> >>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
> >>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
> >>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
> >>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >>+
> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
> >>
> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
> >>>deploydb
> >>> went fine on 4.4
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Amogh
> >>>
> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
> >>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
> >>>>
> >>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
> >>>><da...@gmail.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Daan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Daan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Daan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
--
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
remove them.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
> as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
>
> Thanks,
> -Nitin
>
> On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>>
>>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>>sneak it's way into the release:
>>
>>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>>FOREIGN KEY
>>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>>`)
>>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>>CASCADE
>> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>>
>>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>>the end user';
>>+
>>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>>+
>> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>>>deploydb
>>> went fine on 4.4
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh
>>>
>>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>>>><da...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>>>>
>>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Daan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daan
>
--
Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Nitin Mehta <Ni...@citrix.com>.
Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
Thanks,
-Nitin
On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>
>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>sneak it's way into the release:
>
>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
> CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>FOREIGN KEY
>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>`)
>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>CASCADE
> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>
>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>the end user';
>+
>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>+
> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
><am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>>deploydb
>> went fine on 4.4
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh
>>
>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>>><da...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>>>
>>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Daan
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
sneak it's way into the release:
@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
FOREIGN KEY `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id`)
REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
CASCADE
) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
the end user';
+
+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
+ `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
+ `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
+ `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
+ `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
+ `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
detail can be displayed to the end user',
+ PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
+ CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
+
INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
UPDATE category='Advanced';
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
<am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But deploydb
> went fine on 4.4
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh
>
> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>>
>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daan
>
--
Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Amogh Vasekar <am...@citrix.com>.
Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But deploydb
went fine on 4.4
Thanks,
Amogh
On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>
>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>
>
>
>--
>Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> <am...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>
> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>
> --
> Daan
--
Daan
Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
<am...@citrix.com> wrote:
> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
--
Daan