> On Sept. 11, 2012, 6:06 p.m., edison su wrote:
> > We just need to fix the parameter passed into build system. Right now, the 
> > version number 4.0.{build number} is passed in, so each time, from mgt 
> > server point of view, it's a different version. We can change to 
> > 4.0.0.{build number}. I'll fix it in 
> > http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/job/build-cloudstack-master-rhel6.3/configure,
> >  change the package-version to 4.0.0, instead of 4.0

4.0.0.{buil number} works, but I prefer 4.0.0-{build number} in the MANIFEST.MF 
because com.cloud.maint.Version#trimToPatch handles "-".

To clarify, I would note that in current code, which passes 4.0.{build number}, 
does not work because management server will raise an exception at 
com.cloud.upgrade.DatabaseUpgradeChecker#upgrade with a message "There is no 
upgrade path from 4.0 to 4.0.{build number}". The database version would be 
upgraded to "4.0.0" by com.cloud.upgrade.dao.Upgrade302to40 , and that does not 
match against 4.0.{build number} written in jar manifest Implementation-Version.


- Hiroaki


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7013/#review11343
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 11, 2012, 10:08 a.m., Hiroaki Kawai wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/7013/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 11, 2012, 10:08 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Reading com.cloud.maint.Version in server, version numbers must be x.x.x and 
> artifacts should be appneded with "-". This patch will fix startup database 
> check errors in management server.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   wscript f1c9b62 
>   wscript_configure dcea410 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/7013/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hiroaki Kawai
> 
>

Reply via email to