Hi Rohit, Thanks for the PR. I think we will do 4.7.1 in about 2 weeks time, so that’s around the time 4.5.3 will also be there. Wouldn’t that just be fine? For now, 4.5.3 is not there yet so blocking a release based on that doesn’t seem fair to me.
Let’s get the new stuff to our users (we will get even more feedback) and then improve it. We will release 4.7.1 soon, like we did with 4.6.1. In other words, I think releasing fast is better than trying to be perfect and causing delays. Agree? Regards, Remi From: Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> Date: Wednesday 16 December 2015 11:36 To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.7.0 Hi all, I’ve tested 4.6.2 to 4.7.0 database upgrades and it works because there are no checks in the code wrt from/to versions declared in an upgrade classes. The other issue is the upgrade path for 4.5.3 is broken and would not upgrade it to 4.7.0, but leave it in between. I’ve sent a PR for review that fixes these issues: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1247 It’s debatable whether we need to care about 4.5.3 as it’s not released yet, in which case we can aim to fix the db issue for 4.7.1+. Though, in my opinion the issue is a blocker as it would leave future users of 4.5.3 in a bad state if they decide to upgrade to 4.7.0 (assuming 4.5.3 should be out soon after 4.6.2/4.7.0) so I’m casting the following for now: -1 (binding) Meanwhile, I’m testing 4.7.0-rc1 and following works for me: - Life cycle tests with KVM (CentOS6 and Ubuntu 14.04 based) - Regression testing: SAML single-sign on, several minor KVM enhancements - Metrics UI views - Upgrade tests from 4.5.2 and from 4.6.2 (note: if pre 4.5 users with multiple zones/secondary storages try to upgrade to 4.7.0, they would likely hit systemvm template not synced across all secondary storages issue; fix is to rsync or cp all systemvm template folder across all zones/secondary storages and mark that template as Active in DB) (yet to test with XenServer and VMware, and using CentOS7 as KVM host and mgmt server host) Repos used: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/testing/centos/4.7<http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/testing/centos/4.6> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/testing/centos7/4.7 http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/testing/debian/4.7 SystemVM template used: http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/4.6 Regards. [ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com> Rohit Yadav Software Architect , ShapeBlue d: +44 203 603 0540 | s: <tel:+44%20203%20603%200540%20|%20s:> | m: +91 8826230892<tel:+91%208826230892> e: rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com | t: <mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com%20|%20t:> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com> a: 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK [cid:image58f498.png@dc0d96a2.40b5e854] Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark. This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. On 16-Dec-2015, at 12:20 AM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>> wrote: On 15-Dec-2015, at 10:34 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com<mailto:wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote: Rohit voted -1, but I did not have any problem upgrading from 4.6.2 to 4.7.0. Concerning the issue with 4.5.3, I would not consider it a blocker since 4.5.3 was not even released. So, you have time to get it working or first go to 4.6.0. I’ll test again upgrading from 4.6.2 to 4.7.0 tomorrow and keep you posted, based on the code the from/to versions in the upgrade path classes are incorrect but if it’s still passing then likely the database upgrader/checker may not be enforcing. I did not start with 4.5.3 release efforts in order to not dilute other release efforts, I plan to work on it post 4.7.0. There is an upgrade path from 4.5.3 which is incorrect - either it should not be there in the first place or it must be correctly fixed. We should be releasing CloudStack which can cause DB upgrade issues for previous/older release's users. While it may not be a blocker, this need to be fixed either in 4.7.0 or in 4.7.1 (future minor release then :) ). Regards. Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services: IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> | CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> | CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> | CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
