Everything else aside, do we really think that this could be backed out cleanly? The initial merge should be easy to pull out, but 6 months of follow on work? There's no way that's coming out cleanly.
--David On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: > @wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you > realize amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is > ready to go out. > > Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a > closer look then- the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in > the implementation didn't exist. I will post the bug details around this. > > Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios > and will take substantial time to test/stabilize. > > The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number > of failures and it will take us good time to get those fixed. > > Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape. Hope to get to > these starting next week. > > Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a > new run to complete. > >> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months >>> ago? And expect it to become more stable? >> >> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about >> the VR refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now >> does not seem like a good idea. >> >> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja >> showed XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM. >> >>> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. >>> The problem is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is >>> unstable. There currently isn’t a single PR that solves it, hence there is >>> no way to test PRs. This is because we have many PRs open and they were all >>> branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test proposed >>> PRs. >>> >>> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked >>> and we could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, >>> but at least we could work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a >>> “fix” that made things worse. Probably even multiple of them. >> >> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it >> seemed), so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify >> what caused it >> >>> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it >>> stable. I’ll have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we >>> need to combine to make it work again. O >>> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR >>> with current master and work from there. >> >> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the >> instability you could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not >> render master unstable. >> >> Thanks for looking into it. >> >> -seb >> >>> Regards, >>> Remi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru" <ramanath.ka...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR >>>> functionalities are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It >>>> definitely will take some time and effort from several folks to get it to >>>> a stable state. >>>> >>>> Ram Katru >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pull...@citrix.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>> Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ? >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier. My apologies >>>> to restart this thread again. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing >>>> lot of VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the >>>> refactoring that has happened. I have had the same concern for sometime >>>> now (VR issues have been on the list of issues to be looked into for at >>>> least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with VR being >>>> very fundamental to the system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Couple of solutions/proposals – >>>> >>>> 1) Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time >>>> and it is working well. >>>> >>>> 2) Continue to fix/stability VR changes - Concerns: is the >>>> unknowns, what we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize >>>> the VR functionality. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> Raja >>
