Open Stack

> From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can
> anyone point me to a bug caused by that?

AFAIK, there's no such bugs. Some folks have just *concerns*. Anyway,
it's up to packaging team to decide whether to package or not.

>From Nailgun POV, I'd like to see classical RDBMS schemas as much as
possible, and do not rely on database backend and its version.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski
<bpiotrowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
> On 2015-12-16 10:14, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 2015-12-16 08:23, Mike Scherbakov wrote:
>>> We could consider downgrading in Fuel 9.0, but I'd very carefully
>>> consider that. As Vladimir Kuklin said, there are may be other users who
>>> already rely on 9.3 for some of their enhancements.
>>
>> That will be way too late for that, as it will make upgrade procedure
>> more complicated. Given no clear upgrade path from 7.0 to 8.0, it sounds
>> like perfect opportunity to use what is provided by base distribution.
>> Are there actual users facilitating 9.3 features or is it some kind of
>> Invisible Pink Unicorn?
>>
>> Bartłomiej
>>
>
> I also want to remind that we are striving for possibility to let users
> do 'yum install fuel' (or apt) to make the magic happen. There is not
> much magic in requiring potential users to install specific PostgreSQL
> version because someone said so. It's either supporting the lowest
> version available (CentOS 7 – 9.2, Ubuntu 14.04 – 9.3, Debian Jessie –
> 9.4, openSUSE Leap – 9.4) or "ohai add this repo with our manually
> imported and rebuilt EPEL package".
>
> From what I understand, we are using 9.2 since the CentOS 7 switch. Can
> anyone point me to a bug caused by that?
>
> BP
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev