Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

upgrade: hard-code version requirements for the moment #2017

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 12, 2019

Conversation

@joshmoore
Copy link
Member

joshmoore commented Aug 30, 2019

Moving forward, the DB version number will need to be made more
prominent in the documentation.

see: https://forum.image.sc/t/question-about-postgres-database-during-upgrade-from-5-4-9-to-5-5-1/29119

Moving forward, the DB version number will need to be made more
prominent in the documentation.

see: https://forum.image.sc/t/question-about-postgres-database-during-upgrade-from-5-4-9-to-5-5-1/29119
This section only concerns users upgrading from a |previousversion| or
earlier server. If upgrading from a |version| server, you do not need
This section only concerns users upgrading from a 5.3 or
earlier server. If upgrading from a 5.4 or 5.5 server, you do not need

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@mtbc

mtbc Sep 2, 2019

Member

Doesn't seem to be included in staged docs, guess not considered a point release.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@joshmoore

joshmoore Sep 2, 2019

Author Member

Doesn't seem to be included in staged docs

Because of the job, right?

guess not considered a point release.

What do you mean?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@mtbc

mtbc Sep 2, 2019

Member

I think the .. only:: point_release omits the warning altogether from staging.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@joshmoore

joshmoore Sep 2, 2019

Author Member

Gotcha. So the question might be how to reproduce the version that's on the website.

@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ to run.
(1 row)


If you are upgrading from a server earlier than |previousversion| then
If you are upgrading from a server earlier than 5.3, then
@mtbc
mtbc approved these changes Sep 2, 2019
Copy link
Member

mtbc left a comment

Happy to approve on basis of diff given that the current page is wrong, thank you for this fix.

In the longer term we'll have to figure how decoupling DB from server version affects how this page is generated or we'll just make more mistakes.

@joshmoore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

joshmoore commented Sep 2, 2019

In the longer term we'll have to figure how decoupling DB from server version...

Exactly. It might be that the DB repository (perhaps one with just the SQL?) gets the instructions on the SQL upgrade, and the server points to that. Not sure.

@joshmoore

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

joshmoore commented Sep 12, 2019

Merging and trying to get this released to head off similar issues for other upgraders.

@joshmoore joshmoore merged commit 83bc06c into ome:develop Sep 12, 2019
1 check passed
1 check passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@joshmoore joshmoore deleted the joshmoore:db-54-55 branch Sep 12, 2019
@mtbc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

mtbc commented Nov 8, 2019

Update applied by hand to live site after discussion with @sbesson:

250,251c250,251
< <p class="last">This section only concerns users upgrading from a 5.4 or
< earlier server. If upgrading from a 5.5 server, you do not need
---
> <p class="last">This section only concerns users upgrading from a 5.3 or
> earlier server. If upgrading from a 5.4 or 5.5 server, you do not need
304c304
< <p>If you are upgrading from a server earlier than 5.4 then
---
> <p>If you are upgrading from a server earlier than 5.3 then
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.