Daan, What do you mean remove the 4.5 upgrade code? What would be the consequences of that?
-- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2015 14:18:02 > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.6.0 (round 2) > Wilder, Borg, > > I would be fine with this as a known issue but I'll create a PR to remove > the 4.5 upgrade code anyway. We can put it in 4.6.1 if nothing else pops up. > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Wilder Rodrigues < > wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > >> Nice to know, Lucian! >> >> Happy testing! :) >> >> Cheers, >> Wilder >> >> >> On 11 Nov 2015, at 14:46, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro<mailto:n...@li.nux.ro>> >> wrote: >> >> Wilder, >> >> Thanks for that, adding systemvm-kvm-4.5 solved the problem. >> I will do more testing, but the main issue is sorted. >> >> -- >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> Nux! >> www.nux.ro<http://www.nux.ro/> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Wilder Rodrigues" <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto: >> wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2015 12:39:25 >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.6.0 (round 2) >> >> Hi Nux, >> >> Concerning your second comment: >> >> 2 - after upgrading the packages to 4.6.0, the mgmt server complains the >> 4.5 >> systemvm is missing - wtf? >> >> We explained how the upgrade is done in the issue ==> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9046 >> >> The current way ACS does the upgrade requires one to follow all the path. >> So, >> going from 4.4.x to 4.6.x requires an upgrade to 4.5.x first. In order to >> avoid >> that, you have to register a SystemVM template 4.5.x before as well. >> That’s how >> I did that and how I have tested. All in the issue above. So, the second >> point >> doesn’t really block the RC. >> >> Now, about your first point, since you already mentioned how to get it >> working, >> I wouldn’t say that’s a blocker, right? >> >> Given the current state of the upgrade path, or how it is implemented, >> perhaps >> the issue you created should be marked either “won’t fix” or be changed >> into an >> improvement. >> >> Cheers, >> Wilder >> >> >> On 11 Nov 2015, at 13:11, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro<mailto:n...@li.nux.ro >> ><mailto:n...@li.nux.ro>> wrote: >> >> -1 >> >> I'm testing upgrade from 4.4.1 (what we run in production) to 4.6.0 and >> have hit >> 2 issues. >> >> 1 - minor packaging issue, upgrading to 4.6.0 makes cloudstack-awsapi-4.4.1 >> complain about missing deps; rpm -e --nodeps cloudstack-awsapi gets rid of >> the >> problem, perhaps there's a better way to obsolete this package >> >> 2 - after upgrading the packages to 4.6.0, the mgmt server complains the >> 4.5 >> systemvm is missing - wtf? >> opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9056 for this >> with more >> info >> >> Lucian >> >> -- >> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >> >> Nux! >> www.nux.ro<http://www.nux.ro/><http://www.nux.ro<http://www.nux.ro/>> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Remi Bergsma" <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Tuesday, 10 November, 2015 15:03:03 >> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.6.0 (round 2) >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've created a 4.6.0 release candidate, with the following artifacts up >> for a >> vote: >> >> Git Branch and Commit SH: >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=4.6.0-RC20151110T1545 >> >> Commit: e31ade03c66368c64f0cd66cb7b0b754cddfb79d >> >> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same >> location): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.6.0/ >> >> PGP release keys (signed using A47DDC4F): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS >> >> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> >> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to indicate >> "(binding)" with their vote? >> >> [ ] +1 approve >> [ ] +0 no opinion >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> >> > > > -- > Daan
