Armando M. wrote: > At this point I feel that changing the pool range is even less justified. > If I had seen bug [4], I would have been against its fix, because you're > absolutely right as the change being not backward compatible.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356026 was written by someone on the Trove team to help them with their CI jobs IIRC. CC'ing Matthew since he has more context. I went into the Trove channel and asked them about reverting 356026. It doesn't seem like an option at this point. http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-trove/%23openstack-trove.2016-09-30.log.html#t2016-09-30T17:53:08 -- Sean M. Collins __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
