On 4/22/13 1:36 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:33:32PM -0700, Alena Prokharchyk wrote: >> On 4/22/13 12:29 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:25:53PM +0000, Pranav Saxena wrote: >> >> If we don't , then the only trade-off is the deletion of the users >> >>accounts won't be possible :) . IMHO , we should be allowing that . >> >> >> >> I'll leave it upto you to take a final go at it . >> > >> >Tell you what... why don't you go ahead and back port it. If it >> >happens to get into 4.1.0, then great. Otherwise it'll be in 4.1.1. >> > >> >> Chip, the fix includes the DB upgrade - adding the "default" field to >> user/account DB tables. I've already made changes to 4.1-4.2 upgrade >>path >> on master. If we backport the fix to 4.1 branch, where the db upgrade >> steps should go? As we don't know yet whether it becomes 4.1.1 or 4.1.0 >> yet. >> >> -Alena. >> >> > >Hmmm... well we have been trying to *not* do schema changes for bug-fix >releases. > >If things worked this way for 4.0.x, I don't see any reason to jump on >pushing this into 4.1.x ATM. Perhaps we just leave it in master then. > >Others? > +1. Especially when it includes DB changes.
