Thanks Mike, Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you.
Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect of taking more than three months in the RC phase :( Thanks, ~ Rajani http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: Hi everyone, I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related tests around managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like to investigate before we spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on the next RC until I can find out more (I should know more within 24 hours). Thanks! Mike On 6/12/17, 2:40 AM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>: > > > Hi, > > I opened a PR against the most recent RC: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141 > > I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted in detail in the PR). > > If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from it, I’m +1 on the new RC as long as this is the only commit added to it since the current RC. Thanks Mike! If this PR is good we should probably merge it asap and go for RC5. 4.10 should really be released by now. Wido > > Thanks! > Mike > > On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC since the most recent RC, so I am -1 on this RC. > > The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume snapshots on primary storage (which is a feature managed storage can support): > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9685 > > Here is the SHA: 336df84f1787de962a67d0a34551f9027303040e > > At a high level, what it does is remove a row from the cloud.snapshot_store_ref table when a volume is deleted that has one or more volume snapshots. > > This is fine for non-managed (traditional) storage; however, managed storage can store volume snapshots on primary storage, so removing this row breaks that functionality. > > I can fix the problem that this commit introduced by looking at the primary storage that supports the volume snapshot and checking the following: 1) Is this managed storage? 2) If yes, is the snapshot in question stored on that primary storage? > > The problem is I will be out of the office for a couple weeks and will not be able to address this until I return. > > We could revert the commit, but I still will not have time to run the managed-storage regression test suite until I return. > > On a side note, it looks like this commit was introduced since the most recent RC. I would argue that it was not a blocker and should not have been placed into the new RC. We (as a community) tend to have a lot of code go in between RCs and that just increases the chances of introducing critical issues and thus delaying the release. We’ve gotten better at this over the years, but we should focus more on only allowing the entry of new code into a follow-on RC that is critical (or so trivial as to not at all be likely to introduce any problems…like fixing an error message). > > Thanks for your efforts on this, everyone! > Mike > > On 6/9/17, 8:52 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> wrote: > > Hi Rajani, > > I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing (both automated and manual) done today. If not, we’ll need to see if someone else can complete it before we OK this RC as I won’t be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll report back later today. > > Thanks, > Mike > > On 6/9/17, 2:34 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created > from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a git > pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong. > > Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and cancelling > this. > > ~ Rajani > > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > On June 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike > (mike.tutkow...@netapp.com) wrote: > > Hi Rajani, > > I don’t see the following PR in this RC: > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098 > > I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all > passed with the exception of the one that led to PR 2098. > > As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of > ed2f573, but I think it should sit on top of ed376fc. > > As a result, I am -1 on the RC. > > It takes me about a day to run all of the managed-storage > regression tests and I am out of the office for the next couple > weeks, so I’d really like to avoid another RC until I’m back and > able to test the next RC. > > Thanks! > Mike > > On 6/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I've created 4.10.0.0 release with the following artifacts up > for a vote: > > Git Branch and Commit SH: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 > Commit:a55738a31d0073f2925c6fb84bf7a6bb32f4ca27 > Branch: 4.10.0.0-RC20170607T1407 > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the > same > location): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.10.0.0/ > > SystemVm Templates: > http://download.cloudstack.org/systemvm/4.10/RC3/ > > PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821): > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > Vote will be open for 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) > > Thanks, > ~Rajani > http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/ > > > > >
