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 <daan.hoogl...@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 > <mike.tutkow...@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 <daan.hoogl...@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 <nitin.me...@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" <daan.hoogl...@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 > >> >><amogh.vase...@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" <daan.hoogl...@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 > >> >>>><daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>wrote: > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar > >> >>>>> <amogh.vase...@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.tutkow...@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.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
