On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:43 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> It appears to have been a busy weekend for many of us, so I wanted to >> start a quick discuss thread to see where the community thinks we >> stand regarding a 4.0.0 release VOTE. With Alex headed out on >> vacation after today, he asked if I could take over the release >> management roll this week (of course, if someone has an objection to >> that, feel free to shout!). >> >> Here were the outstanding issues that I noted from last week. Perhaps >> we can get updates from the various community members working on the >> items? >> >> CLOUDSTACK-257: AWS Api is not correctly deployed >> The bug is marked as resolved right now, but that there is still some >> activity on the bug to get it to closure. Can someone please comment >> on the status of this work? > > Chip, I went through the whole testing procedure for 4.0.0.beta6 and > everything worked fine, I also built marvin and configure devcloud with it. > I then tried to test ec2/s3 and indeed there was an issue with the user > registration for AWS. I can test it again with a new build.
Can you try with latest build. I hope that works. Regards. > > -Sebastien > >> >> CLOUDSTACK-267: Migration of VM in KVM host is not happening because... >> Edison, you marked this bug as closed and that it was fixed in >> c8afd816965786441e4b6f855b141d7515f15f6a. Was this patch applied to >> the 4.0 branch? If so, should we update the fix version to be 4.0.0? >> If not, should it be applied to 4.0? >> >> Release Notes and CHANGES file: >> Radhika asked a couple of questions on another thread, which need to >> be answered. Can someone point me to the draft content, so that I can >> create a CHANGES file more easily? Personally, I'm OK with getting >> the more formal release notes completed (and posted to our website) >> during the voting process. It would have been better to have wrapped >> all of the docs for the release as part of the release itself (since >> it's in the source tree), but as long as we post it as soon as >> possible on the website we'll be OK. >> >> I would also suggest that we consider a 4.0.1 release that includes >> the completed docs (and nothing else). I think that once we get >> ourselves through our first official release process, we shouldn't be >> shy with releasing new minor updates. >> >> Last, if there are any other concerns / outstanding items / thoughts >> that people want to share, please do. I'd love to be in a position to >> cut an actual 4.0.0 release candidate today, and start the VOTE >> thread. However, we want to be sure that we've buttoned up as much as >> possible. >> >> -chip >
