I understand the problem now and agree that configurable isnt an option here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
~Rajani On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Or make this configurable and update it in the docs to use the latest > >> > template version? > >> Configurable sound allright but the config action must be the same as > the > >> sysvm install action or we are shifting our responsibilty to the user. > > > > > > The advantage I see with this is we need not do a patch release even if > we > > miss to update. > > I am ot sure I follow so let me phrase what I think should be one: > > systemvm replace code should be written that also edits the > MinVRVersion. On upgrade this code should be run if an upgrade is > needed. > > Missing in this is the problem that might occur when someone upgrades > a systemvm and then has to upgrade to a version that also upgrades the > system vm. For this we must introduce a patch level version that we > promise never to touch as devs, so that users can use this for their > own versions. > > Just making it configurable leaves a responsibility that is ours with > the user. They shouldn't be able to make the mistake of entering to > high a number for instance. > > -- > Daan >
