Hi,

I have regressed and closed CLOUDSTACK-257@ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-257 . 

User registration worked fine with non-oss 97 build @ 
http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/job/build-4.0-nonoss-rhel63/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/CloudStack-non-OSS-97.tar.bz2
 

Thanks and Regards,
Sailaja.M

-----Original Message-----
From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:48 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][ASFCS40] Status of getting to a 4.0.0 release?


On 08-Oct-2012, at 7:28 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 08-Oct-2012, at 6:26 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> 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?
>> 
>> From my side, it's resolved and no more work is needed unless QA reopens it.
> 
> Is someone from Citrix QA currently testing this?

I've asked one of our QA engineers to verify this. 

> 
>> There are 7 patches which are in 4.0 and no on master, as they are 4.0 
>> specific and Hugo suggested on IRC that since they all are fixing ant build 
>> xml files and cloud.spec they may not be needed to be pull on master.
>> 
>> Any case, Chip pl. see if we need to pull them on master.
> 
> I think this is up for discussion.  Can you start a different thread 
> on the topic (with the specific changes)?  I do agree that the work on 
> master to switch to maven completely is critical...  but do the ant 
> build files inform the maven work enough that drift between 4.0 and 
> master should be avoided?

I've started a new thread.
I'm not sure about this, though the patches are practically harmless as they 
don't affect any codebase or maven pom files.

> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 

Reply via email to