Hi Daan, That essentially answers my question - thanks. It sounds like you are saying that we did not add a new feature, but rather we fixed an existing security issue. If that's the case, sounds good.
In general I would say at this point in the release that we need to be asking the following question: "Would we hold the release if this particular bug is not fixed?" If yes, then we should check in such a fix; else, we shouldn't. I would add that we should have exemptions for trivial issues like text fixes. For example, a typo that someone found and fixed should be allowed in because it adds to the overall professionalism of the software and introduces minimal risk. What do you think? Thanks, Mike On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, I have been scanning all commits since code freeze but I can't > say I am a fool proof filter. In General I don't agree that issues > must have been blockers for related code to be allowed in. They must > have been issues with the existing code and not with new features, > though. A trivial error may block us. I would like to see issues > discussed more so we can decide whether and what are blockers. An > issue being 'marked as blocker' is less interesting to me. > > Your worry is not vain when you mean: Did we allow for more code being > added then necessary? > I decided in this case on yes because of the issue it was solving. The > issue the code was related to had to do with an security. > > Daan > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Mike Tutkowski > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > > Just curious...if we are breaking basic functionality right before our > > first 4.4 RC, did this happen with code that was related to a Blocker > > defect? If not, it makes me wonder if the code in question should perhaps > > have waited until a maintenance release for 4.4...or 4.5 if no such > > maintenance release occurs. > > > > If it's related to new functionality, I'd be a bit surprised as we're way > > past that point for 4.4. > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Rayees Namathponnan < > > rayees.namathpon...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > >> Thanks Ian > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/29/14, 10:59 AM, "Ian Duffy" <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > >> > >> >Hi Rayees, > >> > > >> >Pushed a change on this. > >> > > >> > > >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=setu > >> > >p/db/db/schema-430to440.sql;h=8ab2ffba0a4a23dbb9acb0245793b5916ef0a3f7;hp= > >> > >6c9783a9781993a5bb7127083baa2efaad69e8fb;hb=f7417d622a15c9ff6a5d6e5e7284bd > >> >220bc647ee;hpb=46f2b61374c2012bca251c1de58fb1250e50b755 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >On 29 June 2014 18:22, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Rayees, > >> >> > >> >> Looking at it right now. Hope to have a fix for you shortly. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 29 June 2014 18:14, Rayees Namathponnan > >> >><rayees.namathpon...@citrix.com > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I reverted below two commits from local build machine, after that I > >> >>> didn't see the issue reported in 7005 > >> >>> > >> >>> Ian - can you please look your last check-in ? > >> >>> > >> >>> Regards, > >> >>> Rayees > >> >>> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: Rayees Namathponnan [mailto:rayees.namathpon...@citrix.com] > >> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 8:50 AM > >> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >> >>> Subject: CLOUDSTACK-7005 - Failed to start MS with latest 4.4 RPM > >> >>>builds > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi All, > >> >>> > >> >>> Failed to start MS with latest 4.4 RPM builds, getting below error > >> >>> > >> >>> 2014-06-29 07:43:12,466 INFO [c.c.c.ClusterManagerImpl] (main:null) > >> >>> Cluster node IP : 10.223.49.197 > >> >>> 2014-06-29 07:43:12,479 INFO [c.c.c.ClusterManagerImpl] (main:null) > >> >>> Cluster manager is configured. > >> >>> 2014-06-29 07:43:12,648 DEBUG [c.c.u.c.DBEncryptionUtil] (main:null) > >> >>> Error while decrypting: 6 > >> >>> 2014-06-29 07:43:29,465 INFO [c.c.u.c.ComponentContext] (main:null) > >> >>> Configuring > >> >>> > >> > >>>com.cloud.bridge.persist.dao.CloudStackAccountDaoImpl_EnhancerByCloudSta > >> >>>ck_f8e983ac > >> >>> > >> >>> This might be due to below check-in, but not sure > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blobdiff;f=se > >> > >>>tup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql;h=6c9783a9781993a5bb7127083baa2efaad69e8fb > >> > >>>;hp=0293986167cd663a72d0849ab51073fc5f84da31;hb=96412e3e58fd1ced9d269e45 > >> >>>52aaa6410bedf556;hpb=2498f65683bd529b2b03bac9a6cfd2fdbf65aca2 > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Regards, > >> >>> Rayees > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > o: 303.746.7302 > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > > <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > > > > -- > Daan > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
