> On Sept. 25, 2013, 12:34 p.m., daan Hoogland wrote: > > Ship It! > > daan Hoogland wrote: > Darren, this one is simple but next time submit a format created with > 'git format-patch' please!?! I copied the lack of code, because it didn't > 'git am' to the source. > > 9fb0a1a61992f93e2105d9a99d507d48a108b0c7 applied
yeah, sorry. A lot of patches I have pending aren't made with format-patch. Will do for future. You just need to do "git apply --index <patch>" to apply a plain old patch. And then commit - Darren ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14231/#review26373 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 19, 2013, 5:03 p.m., Darren Shepherd wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/14231/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 19, 2013, 5:03 p.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack, Alex Huang and daan Hoogland. > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > ------- > > Currently DatabaseUpgradeChecker determines the code version by doing > this.getClass().getPackage().getImplementationVersion(). If it can't find > the version it will eventually just give up and not do the database check. > The problem currently is if it doesn't find the version, it will also check > its parent's class version. The parent is java.lang.Object which will return > the java version (for example 1.6.0_43). It doesn't seem like we would > really want to ever try the JDK version as our code version, so this patch it > to just effectively remove that check. > > > > Diffs > ----- > > engine/schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/DatabaseUpgradeChecker.java f001bf7 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/14231/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Darren Shepherd > >
