The asf/vpc branch merge to the master is completed. Some bugs were found during the final round of regression for the VPC
1) UI - enable Static nat button doesn't work neither from Networks tab, nor from the VPC. Brian is going to fix it. 2) create LB rule fails for VPC on th Virtual router side due to some error while programming haconfig. Anthony is going to look into it. 3) S2S vpn (part of VPC feature) - customer VPN db schema is not up to date, some changes weren't cherry-picked from citrix internal branch to asf/vpc. Sheng is going to take care of it. The regression test for regular Isolated networks outside of vpc didn't raise any problems, except for the UI one (#1 above). Sheng/Athony/Brian, please put all your fixes to master branch directly (and 4.0 once it's branched out). And double check that all vpc related changes from citrix internal branch are present in asf repo; I found couple of inconsistencies, and added them. Please fix the rest. -Alena. On 8/11/12 11:15 AM, "Ewan Mellor" <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] >> Sent: 10 August 2012 13:19 >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: asf/vpc branch merge >> >> As I'm not a git expert, I would appreciate any help from the community >>in >> figuring out what is the best way to merge vpc branch into master. >> >> >> Couple of ways I can think of: >> >> 1) git checkout master; git merge -s recursive -Xignore-space-change vpc >> >> Puts all commits from the vpc that are differnt from master, to the >>master >> branch. >> >> Pros: >> >> * no tree rebase happens >> * easier to revert individual commits if they cause any issues >> * Have 0 conflicts after the merge is done (just tested on my local >>branch) >> * Very close to vpc branch, so reduces the chances for regression bugs >>(vpc >> branch was tested) >> >> >> Cons: >> >> * harder to track down all VPC commits as they've been happening for a >> couple of months, and appear in the git log on the date they were >>originally >> submitted. >> >> >> >> 2) Do interactive rebase on master from vpc and squash all the commits >>into >> one >> >> git checkout master; git rebase -i asf/vpc >> >> Pros: >> >> * Easier to see all VPC changes as they come as a part of a single >>commit >> >> Cons: >> >> * Requires rebase which leads to lots of conflicts. >> * Not sure if there is an option to revert an individual commit >>happened as a >> part of squashed commit. >> >> >> I personally prefer way 1) as it doesn't lead to conflicts + leaves >>less chances >> for regression bugs as the asf/master structure becomes very similar to >>the >> structure of asf/vpc branch, and this branch was tested. >> But let me know if anybody sees any downsides of doing the merge this >>way >> and can suggest a better way. >> >> >> Thank you, >> -Alena. >> >> >> >> On 8/10/12 10:33 AM, "Alena Prokharchyk" <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Considering that there is a code freeze happening soon, and as the main >> >part for VPC feature development is complete + the VPC code has been >> >well tested by cloudStack QA engineers, it's time to discuss merging >> >the asf/vpc branch into asf/master. At this point its too hard to break >> >it to several components-to-merge as there were too many single commits >> >for the last couple of months from 7 developers involved in the process >> >+ we were doing the daily merges with master branch in order to keep >> >asf/vpc branch up to date. It makes it hard to componentize at this >> >point without running into lots of rebase conflicts >> > >> >So most likely it will be done as a single merge if the merge gets >> >approved by the community. We would highly appreciate any help >> >involving code/documentation review as well as any other suggestions on >> >how to make this particular merge safer and smoother. >> >And the suggestions made towards the merge process in general, will all >> >be addressed in the future. >> > >> >We've tried to keep vpc branch in sync with asf/master by performing >> >daily merges from master branch to vpc, so there shouldn't be too many >> >conflicts. The VPC code went through several rounds of QA including the >> >regression testing for existing network components. Most of the VPC >> >code resides in the new classes added as a part of the feature; but >> >some existing Network related code got some changes and can be >> >considered for the review >> >(NetworkManagerImpl/VirtualNetworkApplianceManager in particular as >> >well as some Agent APIs and cloudStack UI). The VPC FS contains the >> >reference to new classes (including client/agent APIs) created for the >>VPC >> feature (see the link below). >> > >> > >> >Functional specification: >> > >> >http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/RelOps/Inter-VLAN+Routing+functional >> >+sp >> >e >> >c >> > >> > >> >Engineer participated in VPC development: >> > >> >Sheng Yang - S2SVPN implementation >> >Alena Prokharchyk - Client/Agent APIs, >> >VpcManager/VpcVirtualNetworkApplianceManager/NetworkACLManager >> >Anthony Xu - All VirtualRuter script changes + feature implementation >> >for Xen resource Kelven Yang - Implementation for VmWare resource >> Sonny >> >Chhan/Jessica Wang/Brian Federle - UI component >> > >> > >> >QA test cases execution matrix: >> > >> >http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/Inter-VLAN+Test+Execution >> > >> > >> >I'm well aware the 4.0 will be branched on Monday, so once the merge is >> >approved, I can do the merge over the weekend including doing basic >> >regression for the networking key components on the merged branch. > >I think that option 1 is the best. You've been keeping the VPC branch up >to date with master as you've gone along, so using git merge at this >point sounds like the best option. Also, everything has been reviewed on >the way in to the VPC branch, so I don't think that there's a need for >you to rebase/squash everything for master. > >There haven't been any objections, so please go ahead and start that >merge. If you can do it this weekend that will clear the way for us to >branch on Monday morning, but I'll make sure that we've checked that >you're done before we take that branch, so if it spills into Monday then >don't worry too much about it. > >Thanks, > >Ewan. > >
