Bug 1490188

Summary:	properly describe what release_version var should be set to during upgrade
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Shinobu KINJO <skinjo>
Component:	Ceph-Ansible	Assignee:	seb
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Vasishta <vashastr>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	2.3	CC:	adeza, anharris, aschoen, ceph-eng-bugs, gmeno, hnallurv, kdreyer, nthomas, sankarshan, seb, skinjo
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	3.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	RHEL: ceph-ansible-3.0.0-0.1.rc9.el7cp Ubuntu: ceph-ansible_3.0.0~rc9-2redhat1	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-12-05 23:42:56 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Shinobu KINJO 2017-09-11 04:46:04 UTC

Description of problem:
In < rolling_update.yml >, there is a comment below:

 # /!\ DO NOT FORGET TO CHANGE THE RELEASE VERSION FIRST! /!\

This makes users who are going to achieve minor version upgrade (e.g., 2.1 to 2.2) confused because there is no descriptive comment.

Which file(s) is/are this message pointing to?

Comment 2 seb 2017-09-13 21:38:35 UTC

There is no such things as release version for RHCS but I agree this is confusing.

Comment 3 seb 2017-09-15 13:09:31 UTC

Since I haven't received any response from you, I consider that what I did in the PR is correct, so moving ahead with this one.

Comment 6 Harish NV Rao 2017-09-19 14:58:44 UTC

@Seb, please let us know what is changed and steps to test.

Comment 7 seb 2017-09-19 15:10:05 UTC

Harish, nothing to verify, perhaps just read the header of rolling_update.yml and make sure it's comprehensive.

Comment 9 Shinobu KINJO 2017-09-21 02:25:05 UTC

(In reply to seb from comment #3)
> Since I haven't received any response from you, I consider that what I did
> in the PR is correct, so moving ahead with this one.

Sorry for the delay. That's much better.

Comment 12 errata-xmlrpc 2017-12-05 23:42:56 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:3387