So we will have to include an update in every release and we will probably
forget about that pretty soon.
Op ma 1 jun. 2015 om 11:49 schreef Remi Bergsma <r...@remi.nl>:
> I'd say, as a default: 4.4.0 will be nice for any 4.4.x release, and 4.5.0
> for 4.5.x etc. This is also close to what was hard-coded before.
>
> Regards,
> Remi
>
>
> 2015-06-01 11:33 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Guess we'll be making a new rc. The value can be 0.0.0 for my part, it
> must
> > be an operator decision to set the MinVRVersion if it must be higher. It
> > will always be an upgrade matter and any seeded template should be
> accepted
> > as per the installation notes. Of course the other side of the issue is
> > whether a version will work at all. The operator can create a version of
> > the template with their own versioning scheme, however. I should be
> writing
> > all this in another {DISCUSS]-thread.
> >
> > cancelling the RC to add code for Bruno's requirement.
> >
> > Op ma 1 jun. 2015 om 08:35 schreef Milamber <milam...@apache.org>:
> >
> > >
> > > Please note: I my case, there isn't an upgrade, I have the issue with
> > > 4.4.3 or 4.4.4 fresh installation (out of the box, from git tag
> > > 4.4-RC20150529T2004)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 01/06/2015 07:22, Erik Weber wrote:
> > > > If it means that all upgrades are unable to do VR related tasks (
> > > starting
> > > > VMs for one.. ), I'd call that regression and redo.
> > > > Relying on all our users to do manual fixing just because we don't
> want
> > > to
> > > > call off the RC is bad IMHO.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
