I am going to tentatively -1 this one. There has changed something since last rc that makes this one not start a ssvm in my sanity check env after creating a zone. I have not pinned down the culprit commit yet so I will keep looking till I can be sure as to what is wrong. I have been going back and forth between the two versions and commits in the middle and the problem is reproducible it seems.
The new rc throws an insufficient capacity exception and then null pointers as it tries to start the console proxy. In the same env with the same config and zone spec, the old rc works. will let you know as I find out more, Daan On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Abhinandan Prateek <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: > The vote is open till 13 Dec 2013. > > On 10/12/13 6:28 pm, "Abhinandan Prateek" <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >>Hi, >> >> This release candidate addresses the following additional issues >>reported by community: >> >>1. CLOUDSTACK-5145 : ListNetworkACL API should list ACLs owned by the user >>only >>2. CLOUDSTACK-5214 : 4.2.1 upgrade is broken >>3. The CHANGES file has been fixed to mark some important fixes as such, >>instead of new features which they are not. >> >>The details of this RC are as: >> >>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs >>/ >>heads/4.2 >>commit: 43350d64ce66e366f08a9fa13ad09bca462b66da >> >>List of changes are available in Release Notes, a summary can be accessed >>in CHANGES file: >>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=CH >>A >>NGES;hb=4.2 >> >>Source release revision 3865 (checksums and signatures are available at >>the same location): >>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/ >> **note that for release notes separate email will go out subsequently. >> >>PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1): >>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS >> >>Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 12/05 End of day PST). >> >>For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to >>indicate "(binding)" with their vote? >> >>[ ] +1 approve >>[ ] +0 no opinion >>[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >> >> >> >
