On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to absent of Frank, I've tried to make sure Baremetal wouldn't miss
> 4.2. So for the last a few days work, I am able to re-enable baremetal for
> master.
>
> It turn out the change is not big, and most of it just compose of revert o
Done DB upgrading code, and tested.
I've created a new branch baremetal-4.2 for review.
--Sheng
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/18/13 2:44 PM, "Sheng Yang" wrote:
>>
>>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/13 2:44 PM, "Sheng Yang" wrote:
>
> >It seems no change has been done for db upgrade part(no reverting I
> >meant).
> >
> >If it's incorrect someone please pointed out.
>
> 1) Check if these parame
On 6/18/13 2:44 PM, "Sheng Yang" wrote:
>It seems no change has been done for db upgrade part(no reverting I
>meant).
>
>If it's incorrect someone please pointed out.
1) Check if these parameters are being inserted as a part of the upgrade
to 4.2:
"external,baremetal.resource.classname"
"extern
It seems no change has been done for db upgrade part(no reverting I meant).
If it's incorrect someone please pointed out.
--Sheng
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Sheng, can you also check if all the DB upgrade related changes are merg
Sheng, can you also check if all the DB upgrade related changes are merged
back in as well? In case they were dropped at some point.
-Alena.
On 6/18/13 1:53 PM, "Sheng Yang" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Due to absent of Frank, I've tried to make sure Baremetal wouldn't miss
>4.2. So for the last a few days w
