I would guess there are way fewer people who have already upgraded than people
who haven't. So better to fix this as fast as possible and cut a release than
wait longer and not. At the very least we should pull 3.0.13 so even less
people can/have upgrade to it.
> On May 31, 2017, at 7:45 AM, J
The number of people isn't zero. Before we commit and cut a new release, we
need to be able to explain what that upgrade path is.
If this is just migration storms then it's not worth cutting a new release -
3.0 was doing that anyway until very recently. If it fails to start that's a
much bigger
On 31.05.2017 09:34, Stefania Alborghetti wrote:
> There shouldn't be too many people with 3.0.13 in
> production however, since upgrading to 3.0.13 is broken in the first place.
Keep in mind that there are always people upgrading from 2.x, especially
since we had a couple of important bug fixes
The patch for 13559 is available if we want to release it in 3.0.14. The
tests are still running but I don't expect problems. We need a reviewer
however.
Releasing the patch in 3.0.14 will cause problems for people that deployed
3.0.13 and upgrade upwards, but the schema will agree once the rollin
On 31 May 2017 at 03:41, Jeremiah D Jordan
wrote:
> If 3.0.13 causes schema mismatch on upgrade, then maybe we should pull
> that and release 3.0.14 once 13559 is fixed. As that is a pretty bad place
> to get into.
i think that would be a good idea
If 3.0.13 causes schema mismatch on upgrade, then maybe we should pull that and
release 3.0.14 once 13559 is fixed. As that is a pretty bad place to get into.
> On May 30, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Jay Zhuang wrote:
>
> Seems the mail is marked as spam. So try forwarding with another email
> account.
