Bug 1259782
Summary: | engine-setup creates a database engine_TIMESTAMP | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Yedidyah Bar David <didi> |
Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Yedidyah Bar David <didi> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Pavel Stehlik <pstehlik> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 3.3.0 | CC: | bazulay, didi, gklein, iheim, lsurette, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, sbonazzo, yeylon, ykaul, ylavi |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-03-24 09:14:30 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | Integration | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Yedidyah Bar David
2015-09-03 14:13:38 UTC
1. this should be opened upstream not downstream, we have only one product, this behaviour is not downstream specific. 2. we minimize questions - the name of database should not be important if we provision. 3. database name can always changed later if actually required. 4. the above was the reason for this behavior. (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #2) > 1. this should be opened upstream not downstream, we have only one product, > this behaviour is not downstream specific. > 2. we minimize questions - the name of database should not be important if > we provision. If we default to 'engine' and 'engine' exists and non-empty, imo we should not continue silently with a different name. IMO (and not only mine), in almost all such cases, this was a result of a bug and/or user error, almost never a conscious decision/will. > 3. database name can always changed later if actually required. > 4. the above was the reason for this behavior. Was this discussed anywhere? Is this documented anywhere? Do we have a bug/RFE asking this? Do what you think best, I gave reasoning of current implementation. (In reply to Alon Bar-Lev from comment #4) > Do what you think best, Very well. > I gave reasoning of current implementation. Thanks for that! *** Bug 1072878 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** This is by design and the summary contains the new db name. If the user chose automatic and confirmed the summary, we should not block this. |