Ok, I'm changing my vote to: +1 (binding)
The upgrade issue I had was a known one, easily fixed thanks to Wilder, should be mentioned in the upgrade docs though. I tested KVM with CentOS 6 HVs and Adv+SG zone. Security groups work, basic functions works, restore from snapshot works, create volume/template from snapshot works etc. Looks good! Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nux!" <n...@li.nux.ro> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2015 12:11:37 > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.6.0 (round 2) > -1 > > I'm testing upgrade from 4.4.1 (what we run in production) to 4.6.0 and have > hit > 2 issues. > > 1 - minor packaging issue, upgrading to 4.6.0 makes cloudstack-awsapi-4.4.1 > complain about missing deps; rpm -e --nodeps cloudstack-awsapi gets rid of the > problem, perhaps there's a better way to obsolete this package > > 2 - after upgrading the packages to 4.6.0, the mgmt server complains the 4.5 > systemvm is missing - wtf? > opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9056 for this with > more > info > > Lucian > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Remi Bergsma" <rberg...@schubergphilis.com> >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Tuesday, 10 November, 2015 15:03:03 >> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.6.0 (round 2) > >> Hi all, >> >> I've created a 4.6.0 release candidate, with the following artifacts up for a >> vote: >> >> Git Branch and Commit SH: >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=4.6.0-RC20151110T1545 >> >> Commit: e31ade03c66368c64f0cd66cb7b0b754cddfb79d >> >> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same >> location): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.6.0/ >> >> PGP release keys (signed using A47DDC4F): >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS >> >> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> >> 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)
