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

Ensure Tendermint v0.35 key migration is supported in Cosmos SDK, Cosmovisor and/or Gaia #9894

Closed
4 tasks
okwme opened this issue Aug 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed
4 tasks

Comments

@okwme
Copy link
Contributor

okwme commented Aug 10, 2021

Summary

@tychoish let me know that:

one of the things that ships in [Tendermint] 0.35 is that the format of keys in the database change, which means that operators who are running nodes that started as 0.34 will need to run a script that will rewrite all of the keys. I've written the script (in june) and we have a PR up right now to expose it as part of the tendermint CLI

Problem Definition

How do we ensure that this migration script is integrated into SDK upgrades that incorporate the new release of Tendermint? Should this be something added to Cosmosvisor? Something that could somehow interact with the chain migration scripts?

This issue is meant to discuss ways to ensure a good developer experience as this change comes down the pipeline—especially with regard to the

Proposal

Begin a discussion here and plan separate synchronous discussions as needed.


For Admin Use

  • Not duplicate issue
  • Appropriate labels applied
  • Appropriate contributors tagged
  • Contributor assigned/self-assigned
@clevinson clevinson added the S:needs architecture review To discuss on the next architecture review call to come to alignment label Aug 10, 2021
@clevinson clevinson removed the S:needs architecture review To discuss on the next architecture review call to come to alignment label Aug 27, 2021
@clevinson
Copy link
Contributor

We discussed this in our architecture call last week, and have spun up a working group on cosmovisor & x/upgrade improvements.

This particular issue should be resolved by #9973

@robert-zaremba
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing in favor of #9973

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants