Hi Sebastien, On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:51 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rohit, > > Any chance you have time to check this one review. > My git kungfu is limited and the patch seems to have conflicts. > > Tim did quite a bit of work to get there, so a merge could be call > quickly, if this patch could apply, that would ease another round of > rebasing.. > First of all great work Tim, kudos for your work! I'm able to apply the patch from reviewboard on latest master now, I was able to cleanly build it. I'm testing it right now against DevCloud, will reply on the other thread where you were asking about merging it to master as work from others could cause future conflicts. The trick to merge such patches (and while working with branch) is to ignore whitespaces etc, so: git am --ignore-whitespace <patch> Tim, I see the xen plugin in new form is xenserver, I've a question - I see there is only one plugin I see now "Plugin - Hypervisor XenServer", will this work for both xen (xen.org, opensource version) and xenserver (citrix's opensource release)? Replied on other thread regarding merging on master, asap. Regards. > > thanks,, > > -sebastien > > On Jun 5, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Tim Mackey <tmac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I've just submitted a review request which is essentially a merge of > > the xen2server feature branch back into master. Since this is a > > refactoring of the Xen plugin to make it more explicitly a XenServer > > plugin per the feature: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Convert+Xen+usage+to+XenServer > , > > I wanted to ensure everyone was aware of what is changing. Diff > > details can be found here: https://reviews.apache.org/r/22270/ > > > > The key item in this change is that what was the xen plugin has now > > moved to become the xenserver plugin to make way for a pure xen > > plugin. If you are working on something which is XenServer specific, > > you'll probably want to take a look at what I've done, sanity check it > > against your plans and ask questions. Additionally, if you've done > > some work in XenServer code since the start of April, you might want > > to make certain I didn't accidentally revert any of your changes > > during conflict resolution. I tried to be careful, but accidents do > > happen. > > > > The merge point was commit 603eab7 (HEAD yesterday), and from there I > > did a bunch of sanity testing using XenServer 6.2. I also tested and > > validated with the current HEAD (8b5ec64). If you were looking at or > > testing anything on the xen2server branch, no new functionality was > > introduced from that branch; this is effectively a merge with > > conflicts resolved. > > > > Thanks > > > > -tim > >
