> On Nov. 9, 2013, 12:36 a.m., Nitin Mehta wrote:
> > server/src/com/cloud/configuration/Config.java, line 302
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15349/diff/1/?file=380896#file380896line302>
> >
> >     This needs to have corresponding upgrade fix as well.

This is the same as in 3.0.7, i think we need not have this in the upgrade.


> On Nov. 9, 2013, 12:36 a.m., Nitin Mehta wrote:
> > engine/schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao/Upgrade410to420.java, line 940
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/15349/diff/1/?file=380894#file380894line940>
> >
> >     Do we have a way to correct it for folks already on 4.2 ?
> >

we will edit the fix_cpuovercommit script with these changes.


- bharat


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15349/#review28602
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 9, 2013, 12:11 a.m., bharat kumar wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/15349/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 9, 2013, 12:11 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for cloudstack and Nitin Mehta.
> 
> 
> Bugs: Cloudstack-5077.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/Cloudstack-5077.
> 
> 
> Repository: cloudstack-git
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> 
> 1.) This includes the change to reserve cpu and memory only when 
> vmware.reserve.cpu/mem is true, regardless of overcommit. 
> 2.) populate the default value of the cpu overcommit at cluster level form 
> the global setting when up grading. 
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   engine/schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao/Upgrade410to420.java 646b406 
>   
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
>  4921925 
>   server/src/com/cloud/configuration/Config.java f3cb919 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15349/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> bharat kumar
> 
>

Reply via email to