Thinking about being disrespectful when one doesn’t read the emails, or does but filters parts of the message, and keeps storming about unclear things.
Yes, time to move on. We have to get a cloud running. Cheers, Wilder > On 24 Sep 2015, at 20:29, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: > > this is very disrespectful... Sorry to say that you don't understand the > complexity and impact of this.. Let's not discuss this over an email and > agree to disagree with each other... move on! > >> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Wilder Rodrigues >> <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: >> >> Raja, >> >> Do you actually know the amount of blockers we have and how many are VR >> related? Because I have seen emails from Rajani around concerning the >> blockers and I don’t see many. So, yes, I really do think your approach is >> non-sense. >> >> I mentioned it before, about 1 week ago, but I think you just ignored the >> content of the email. We have 7 blockers, from which 4 are VR related but >> probably only 2 are related to the refactor of the router side (python >> code). You created 2 of the blockers. So, I think would be better to focus >> on fixing them other than making a storm out of it. >> >> You can see the list here: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765 >> >> The java part of the router refactor was released on 4.5, quite some time >> ago. So, please have a look at git log before mentioned the refactor as a >> whole. >> >> Another thing is: master is unstable - not because VR changes - and nobody >> could tests the PRs that should fix the VR issues. When we suggested to >> stabilise Master, people kept pushing features through PRs thinking that it >> would help - even after we said only BLOCKER issues would be merged. >> >> So, please stop this storm around the VR because we are trying to work. >> >> Cheers, >> Wilder >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2015, at 17:21, Raja Pullela >> <raja.pull...@citrix.com<mailto: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<mailto:run...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma >> <rberg...@schubergphilis.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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 >> >>
