Hi All, Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all on the same page.
4.1 * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) - (Even for this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic) *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template provided by Sheng. 4.2 ( Master) * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template process streamlined for all HVs * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit [2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed. * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462 Hope this approach is fine for everyone. Thanks /Sudha -----Original Message----- From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release? On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal > <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > > >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted > >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole > >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion. > > > > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. > > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since > > it is considered experimental. > > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this > > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go > > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks > > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'. > > I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would > need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I > opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we > started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine. > > But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the > issue raised by QA at last minute. > > I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in > 4.1. Seems nobody cares. > > > >> > >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm > >>template for one release would be tricky I think. > > > > Yes, but it is experimental. > > > >> > >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained > >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside > >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, > >>tested enough for default template. > > > > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we > > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the > > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For > > example: > > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or > > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created. > > I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or > confident. > > I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things. > > According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's > right that people not quite interested in ipv6. To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support. I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as previously agreed). > > Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable > with updated template. +1 to that approach. And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing... to make IPv6 support a full feature for 4.2. > > --Sheng > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785 > [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387 > [3] > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus > =15159 > > > >> > >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade > >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't > >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it > >>again, Kelven should able to help with it. > >> > >>--Sheng > >> > >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers > >><chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: > >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless > >>>>the ipv6 feature is required in which case: > >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been > >>>>testing with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) > >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is > >>>>created) to > >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> > >>> > >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would > >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if > >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do > >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM. > >>> > >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. > >>> > >>> Other thoughts? > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >>>> >> When I first report the bug > >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 > >>>> >> > >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't > >>>> >>aware of that. > >>>> > > >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the > >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since > >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the > >>>> >version to > >>>> >4.2 > >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make > >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and > >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are: > >>>> > > >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 > >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the > >>>> >appliance/template really works [2] > >>>> > > >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I > >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least > >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1 Since, > >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at > >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be > >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) > >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few > >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use the same old > >>>> >template. > >>>> > > >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? > >>>> > > >>>> >Regards. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 > >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 > >>>> > > >>>> >> > >>>> >> --Sheng > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers > >>>> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan > >>>> >>> Purushothama > >>>>wrote: > >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature > >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The > >>>> >>>>system > >>>>VM > >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch > >>>> > >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m > >>>>>>>>aster/ > >>>>>>>>las > >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am > >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use > >>>> >>> now > >>>>are the > >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix > >>>>pre-ASF). > >>>> > >>>> > > >
