Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

[Rohit Yadav]

+0


- Rohit






From: Rafael Weingärtner 
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:16:24 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

Hope you guys had great holy days!

Resuming the discussion we started last year in [1]. It is time to vote and
then to push (if the vote is successful) the protocol defined to our wiki.
Later we can start enforcing it.
I will summarize the protocol for branches in the official repository.

   1. We only maintain the master and major release branches. We currently
   have a system of X.Y.Z.S. I define major release here as a release that
   changes either ((X or Y) or (X and Y));
   2. We will use tags for versioning. Therefore, all versions we release
   are tagged accordingly, including minor and security releases;
   3. When releasing the “SNAPSHOT” is removed and the branch of the
   version is created (if the version is being cut from master). Rule (1) one
   is applied here; therefore, only major releases will receive branches.
   Every release must have a tag according to the format X.Y.Z.S. After
   releasing, we bump the POM of the version to next available SNAPSHOT;
   4. If there's a need to fix an old version, we work on HEAD of
   corresponding release branch. For instance, if we want to fix something in
   release 4.1.1.0, we will work on branch 4.1, which will have the POM set to
   4.1.2.0-SNAPSHOT;
   5. People should avoid (it is not forbidden though) using the official
   apache repository to store working branches. If we want to work together on
   some issues, we can set up a fork and give permission to interested parties
   (the official repository is restricted to committers). If one uses the
   official repository, the branch used must be cleaned right after merging;
   6. Branches not following these rules will be removed if they have not
   received attention (commits) for over 6 (six) months;
   7. Before the removal of a branch in the official repository it is
   mandatory to create a Jira ticket and send a notification email to
   CloudStack’s dev mailing list. If there are no objections, the branch can
   be deleted seven (7) business days after the notification email is sent;
   8. After the branch removal, the Jira ticket must be closed.

Let’s go to the poll:
(+1) – I want to work using this protocol
(0) – Indifferent to me
(-1) – I prefer the way it is not, without any protocol/guidelines


[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-dev/201711.mbox/%3CCAHGRR8ozDBX%3DJJewLz_cu-YP9vA3TEmesvxGArTDBPerAOj8Cw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

--
Rafael Weingärtner

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

[Wido den Hollander]

+1

> Op 3 jan. 2018 om 09:02 heeft Rohit Yadav  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> +0
> 
> 
> - Rohit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Rafael Weingärtner 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:16:24 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.
> 
> Hope you guys had great holy days!
> 
> Resuming the discussion we started last year in [1]. It is time to vote and
> then to push (if the vote is successful) the protocol defined to our wiki.
> Later we can start enforcing it.
> I will summarize the protocol for branches in the official repository.
> 
>   1. We only maintain the master and major release branches. We currently
>   have a system of X.Y.Z.S. I define major release here as a release that
>   changes either ((X or Y) or (X and Y));
>   2. We will use tags for versioning. Therefore, all versions we release
>   are tagged accordingly, including minor and security releases;
>   3. When releasing the “SNAPSHOT” is removed and the branch of the
>   version is created (if the version is being cut from master). Rule (1) one
>   is applied here; therefore, only major releases will receive branches.
>   Every release must have a tag according to the format X.Y.Z.S. After
>   releasing, we bump the POM of the version to next available SNAPSHOT;
>   4. If there's a need to fix an old version, we work on HEAD of
>   corresponding release branch. For instance, if we want to fix something in
>   release 4.1.1.0, we will work on branch 4.1, which will have the POM set to
>   4.1.2.0-SNAPSHOT;
>   5. People should avoid (it is not forbidden though) using the official
>   apache repository to store working branches. If we want to work together on
>   some issues, we can set up a fork and give permission to interested parties
>   (the official repository is restricted to committers). If one uses the
>   official repository, the branch used must be cleaned right after merging;
>   6. Branches not following these rules will be removed if they have not
>   received attention (commits) for over 6 (six) months;
>   7. Before the removal of a branch in the official repository it is
>   mandatory to create a Jira ticket and send a notification email to
>   CloudStack’s dev mailing list. If there are no objections, the branch can
>   be deleted seven (7) business days after the notification email is sent;
>   8. After the branch removal, the Jira ticket must be closed.
> 
> Let’s go to the poll:
> (+1) – I want to work using this protocol
> (0) – Indifferent to me
> (-1) – I prefer the way it is not, without any protocol/guidelines
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-dev/201711.mbox/%3CCAHGRR8ozDBX%3DJJewLz_cu-YP9vA3TEmesvxGArTDBPerAOj8Cw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
> 
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
> 
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

[Marc-Aurèle Brothier]

+1

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Wido den Hollander  wrote:

> +1
>
> > Op 3 jan. 2018 om 09:02 heeft Rohit Yadav 
> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> > +0
> >
> >
> > - Rohit
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Rafael Weingärtner 
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:16:24 PM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.
> >
> > Hope you guys had great holy days!
> >
> > Resuming the discussion we started last year in [1]. It is time to vote
> and
> > then to push (if the vote is successful) the protocol defined to our
> wiki.
> > Later we can start enforcing it.
> > I will summarize the protocol for branches in the official repository.
> >
> >   1. We only maintain the master and major release branches. We currently
> >   have a system of X.Y.Z.S. I define major release here as a release that
> >   changes either ((X or Y) or (X and Y));
> >   2. We will use tags for versioning. Therefore, all versions we release
> >   are tagged accordingly, including minor and security releases;
> >   3. When releasing the “SNAPSHOT” is removed and the branch of the
> >   version is created (if the version is being cut from master). Rule (1)
> one
> >   is applied here; therefore, only major releases will receive branches.
> >   Every release must have a tag according to the format X.Y.Z.S. After
> >   releasing, we bump the POM of the version to next available SNAPSHOT;
> >   4. If there's a need to fix an old version, we work on HEAD of
> >   corresponding release branch. For instance, if we want to fix
> something in
> >   release 4.1.1.0, we will work on branch 4.1, which will have the POM
> set to
> >   4.1.2.0-SNAPSHOT;
> >   5. People should avoid (it is not forbidden though) using the official
> >   apache repository to store working branches. If we want to work
> together on
> >   some issues, we can set up a fork and give permission to interested
> parties
> >   (the official repository is restricted to committers). If one uses the
> >   official repository, the branch used must be cleaned right after
> merging;
> >   6. Branches not following these rules will be removed if they have not
> >   received attention (commits) for over 6 (six) months;
> >   7. Before the removal of a branch in the official repository it is
> >   mandatory to create a Jira ticket and send a notification email to
> >   CloudStack’s dev mailing list. If there are no objections, the branch
> can
> >   be deleted seven (7) business days after the notification email is
> sent;
> >   8. After the branch removal, the Jira ticket must be closed.
> >
> > Let’s go to the poll:
> > (+1) – I want to work using this protocol
> > (0) – Indifferent to me
> > (-1) – I prefer the way it is not, without any protocol/guidelines
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cloudstack-dev/
> 201711.mbox/%3CCAHGRR8ozDBX%3DJJewLz_cu-YP9vA3TEmesvxGArTDBPerAOj8Cw%
> 40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > --
> > Rafael Weingärtner
> >
> > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
>

[CVE-2013-4317] Apache CloudStack information disclosure vulnerability

[Rafael Weingärtner]

The Apache CloudStack’s security team turns public the CVE-2013-4317.

*Severity*: High
*Vendor*: The Apache Software Foundation
*Versions Affected*: Apache CloudStack 4.1.0, 4.1.1

*Description*: When calling the CloudStack API call listProjectAccounts 
as a regular, non-administrative user, the user is able to see 
information for accounts other than their own.

*Mitigation*: Upgrade to Apache CloudStack 4.2

*Credit*: This issue was identified by Ahmad Emneina of Citrix.

P.S. This issue has been fixed a long time ago. However, the 
announcement has been forgotten. We apologize for that.


--
Rafael Weingärtner

test file sticking around

[Daan Hoogland]

devs,

This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named
'services/secondary-storage/server/testfile' is created during the build
and I think it is created in
NfsSecondaryStorageResourceTest.testSwiftWriteMetadataFile(). I want to
solve this with an @After method. Any reason not to? like it being used in
more then just this test, or it should be destroyed in the test itself.

​regards,​
-- 
Daan

Re: test file sticking around

[Rafael Weingärtner]

+1 for removal.
Do you need to do this in the @After? If it is a single test method that is
creating this file, why not delete it after the assertions?

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> devs,
>
> This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named
> 'services/secondary-storage/server/testfile' is created during the build
> and I think it is created in
> NfsSecondaryStorageResourceTest.testSwiftWriteMetadataFile(). I want to
> solve this with an @After method. Any reason not to? like it being used in
> more then just this test, or it should be destroyed in the test itself.
>
> ​regards,​
> --
> Daan
>



-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Re: test file sticking around

[Rohit Yadav]

+1 remove after test finishes.



- Rohit






From: Daan Hoogland 
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:17:04 PM
To: dev
Subject: test file sticking around

devs,

This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named
'services/secondary-storage/server/testfile' is created during the build
and I think it is created in
NfsSecondaryStorageResourceTest.testSwiftWriteMetadataFile(). I want to
solve this with an @After method. Any reason not to? like it being used in
more then just this test, or it should be destroyed in the test itself.

​regards,​
--
Daan

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

RE: Release Notes

[Paul Angus]

Hey there Will,

Happy New Year to you!

I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using 
9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the last 
release. And github token is obviously working.

Any ideas ?


.. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover

+-+--++---+--++
| Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type  | 
Priority | Description|
+=+==++===+==++
| master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug   | 
Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate|
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2359`_ ||   | 
 | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo) |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug   | 
Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity  |
| |  ||   | 
 | group owned by the root domain |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature   | 
Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC|
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement   | 
Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag  |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement   | 
Major| Do not assign public IP NIC to the VPC VR when the VPC |
| |  ||   | 
 | offering does not contain VpcVirtualRouter as a SourceNat  |
| |  ||   | 
 | provider   |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2238`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10053_  | Improvement   | 
Major| Performance improvement: Caching of external id's  |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2268`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10081_  | Bug   | 
Major| CloudUtils getDevInfo function only checks for KVM |
| |  ||   | 
 | bridgePort and not OVS |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2054`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9886_   | Bug   | 
Major| After restarting cloudstack-management , It takes time to  |
| |  ||   | 
 | connect hosts  |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2109`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9922_   | Bug   | 
Major| Unable  to use 8081 port for Load balancing|
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#2044`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9877_   | Improvement   | 
Major| remove fully cloned deleted templates from primary storage |
+-+--++---+--++
| master  | `#1959`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9786_   | Bug   | 
Major| API reference guide entry for associateIpAddress needs a   |
| |  ||   | 
 | fix 

RE: Master Blockers and Criticals

[Paul Angus]

Hi All, Happy New Year to everyone.

We're getting close to looking really good.

Last call to Jayapal... I think there is an argument to downgrade 9885 from 
blocker to critical as it's quite a corner case and we're not getting any 
traction on a resolution.
Otherwise can we have a big push to close these bugs and also any open PRs that 
people can get round to.

CLOUDSTACK-9885 -- Blocker
VPC RVR: On deleting first tier and configuring Private GW both VRs becoming 
MASTER
Jayapal Reddy   Jayapal Reddy

CLOUDSTACK-9892 --- Critical
Primary storage resource check is broken when using root disk size override to 
deploy VM
Koushik Das Koushik Das

CLOUDSTACK-9862 --- Critical
list template with id= no longer work as domain admin
Khosrow Moossavi  Pierre-Luc Dion

CLOUDSTACK-10128 --- Critical
Template from snapshot not merging vhd files
Rafael Weingärtner Marcelo Lima


Kind regards,

Paul Angus


paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: test file sticking around

[Daan Hoogland]

thanks guys,
I did it in an @After-method anyway to make sure it still gets cleaned on
exceptions.
enjoy https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2384

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Rohit Yadav 
wrote:

> +1 remove after test finishes.
>
>
>
> - Rohit
>
> 
>
>
>
> 
> From: Daan Hoogland 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:17:04 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: test file sticking around
>
> devs,
>
> This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named
> 'services/secondary-storage/server/testfile' is created during the build
> and I think it is created in
> NfsSecondaryStorageResourceTest.testSwiftWriteMetadataFile(). I want to
> solve this with an @After method. Any reason not to? like it being used in
> more then just this test, or it should be destroyed in the test itself.
>
> ​regards,​
> --
> Daan
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daan

Re: Release Notes

[Will Stevens]

Hey Paul,
Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are
handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we seem
to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge pull
request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.

I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current way
we are merging the PRs.

Cheers,

*Will Stevens*
CTO



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus  wrote:

> Hey there Will,
>
>
>
> Happy New Year to you!
>
>
>
> I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
> 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the last
> release. And github token is obviously working.
>
>
>
> Any ideas ?
>
>
>
>
>
> .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
>
>
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
> | Priority | Description|
>
> +=+==++=
> ==+==+==
> ==+
>
> | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
> | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate|
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2359`_ ||
> |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo) |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
> | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity  |
>
> | |  ||
>   |  | group owned by the root domain
> |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature
> | Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC|
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement
> | Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag  |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement
> | Major| Do not assign public IP NIC to the VPC VR when the VPC |
>
> | |  ||
> |  | offering does not contain VpcVirtualRouter as a SourceNat  |
>
> | |  ||
> |  | provider   |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2238`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10053_  | Improvement
> | Major| Performance improvement: Caching of external id's  |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2268`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10081_  | Bug
> | Major| CloudUtils getDevInfo function only checks for KVM |
>
> | |  ||
> |  | bridgePort and not OVS |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2054`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9886_   | Bug
> | Major| After restarting cloudstack-management , It takes time to  |
>
> | |  ||
> |  | connect hosts  |
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> --+
>
> | master  | `#2109`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9922_   | Bug
> | Major| Unable  to use 8081 port for Load balancing|
>
> +-+--++-
> --+--+--
> 

Re: Release Notes

[Rafael Weingärtner]

I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are
using the Gitbox experiment.
When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is
an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is
what happening.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:

> Hey Paul,
> Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are
> handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we seem
> to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge pull
> request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.
>
> I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current way
> we are merging the PRs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> *Will Stevens*
> CTO
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey there Will,
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy New Year to you!
> >
> >
> >
> > I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
> > 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the last
> > release. And github token is obviously working.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any ideas ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
> >
> >
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
> > | Priority | Description|
> >
> > +=+==++=
> > ==+==+==
> > ==+
> >
> > | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
> > | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate|
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2359`_ ||
> > |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo) |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
> > | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity  |
> >
> > | |  ||
> >   |  | group owned by the root domain
> > |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature
> > | Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC|
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement
> > | Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag  |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement
> > | Major| Do not assign public IP NIC to the VPC VR when the VPC |
> >
> > | |  ||
> > |  | offering does not contain VpcVirtualRouter as a SourceNat  |
> >
> > | |  ||
> > |  | provider   |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2238`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10053_  | Improvement
> > | Major| Performance improvement: Caching of external id's  |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2268`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10081_  | Bug
> > | Major| CloudUtils getDevInfo function only checks for KVM |
> >
> > | |  ||
> > |  | bridgePort and not OVS |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2054`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9886_   | Bug
> > | Major| After restarting cloudstack-management , It takes time to  |
> >
> > |

Re: Release Notes

[Will Stevens]

Thanks Rafael!

I am working on it now and will see if I can get a working version sorted
in the next hour or so.  The PR number is in the commit, but just not in
the format I was expecting.  It is at the end of the line in the format
(#.).

I will have something soon.

*Will Stevens*
CTO



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are
> using the Gitbox experiment.
> When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is
> an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is
> what happening.
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Will Stevens 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Paul,
> > Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are
> > handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we
> seem
> > to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge
> pull
> > request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.
> >
> > I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current
> way
> > we are merging the PRs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > *Will Stevens*
> > CTO
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey there Will,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Happy New Year to you!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
> > > 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the
> last
> > > release. And github token is obviously working.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ideas ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
> > > | Priority | Description
>   |
> > >
> > > +=+==++=
> > > ==+==+==
> > > ==+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
> > > | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2359`_ ||
> > > |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo)
>  |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
> > > | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity
>   |
> > >
> > > | |  ||
> > >   |  | group owned by the root domain
> > > |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature
> > > | Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement
> > > | Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement
> > > | Major| Do not assign public IP NIC to the VPC VR when the VPC
>  |
> > >
> > > | |  ||
> > > |  | offering does not contain VpcVirtualRouter as a
> SourceNat  |
> > >
> > > | |  ||
> > > |  | provider
>  |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2238`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10053_  | Improvement
> > > | Major| Performance improvement: Caching of external id's
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2268`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10081_  | Bug
> > > | Major| CloudUtils getDevInfo function onl

RE: Release Notes

[Paul Angus]

Thanks guys!



Kind regards,

Paul Angus

From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of 
Will Stevens
Sent: 03 January 2018 16:01
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Paul Angus 
Subject: Re: Release Notes

Thanks Rafael!

I am working on it now and will see if I can get a working version sorted in 
the next hour or so.  The PR number is in the commit, but just not in the 
format I was expecting.  It is at the end of the line in the format (#.).

I will have something soon.

Will Stevens
CTO

[https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cloudops/media/master/cloudops.png]


paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rafael Weingärtner 
mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are
using the Gitbox experiment.
When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is
an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is
what happening.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Will Stevens 
mailto:wstev...@cloudops.com>> wrote:

> Hey Paul,
> Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are
> handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we seem
> to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge pull
> request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.
>
> I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current way
> we are merging the PRs.
>
> Cheers,
>
> *Will Stevens*
> CTO
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus 
> mailto:paul.an...@shapeblue.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey there Will,
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy New Year to you!
> >
> >
> >
> > I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
> > 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the last
> > release. And github token is obviously working.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any ideas ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
> >
> >
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
> > | Priority | Description|
> >
> > +=+==++=
> > ==+==+==
> > ==+
> >
> > | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
> > | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate|
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2359`_ ||
> > |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo) |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
> > | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity  |
> >
> > | |  ||
> >   |  | group owned by the root domain
> > |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature
> > | Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC|
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement
> > | Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag  |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement
> > | Major| Do not assign public IP NIC to the VPC VR when the VPC |
> >
> > | |  ||
> > |  | offering does not contain VpcVirtualRouter as a SourceNat  |
> >
> > | |  ||
> > |  | provider   |
> >
> > +-+--++-
> > --+--+--
> > --+
> >
> > | master  | `#2238`_ | C

Re: Release Notes

[Will Stevens]

​Hey Paul,
You can pull down the latest code and everything should be working now: ​
https://github.com/swill/generate_acs_rn

I updated the tool to handle PRs merged through Github since I was
originally only handling PRs which were merged through the `git pr `
utility tool we had as part of our old process.

Let me know if you have any questions or issues.  Thanks for pointing out
this issue...  :)

Cheers,

*Will Stevens*
CTO



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Paul Angus 
wrote:

> Thanks guys!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Paul Angus
>
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> *From:* williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Will Stevens
> *Sent:* 03 January 2018 16:01
> *To:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> *Cc:* Paul Angus 
> *Subject:* Re: Release Notes
>
>
>
> Thanks Rafael!
>
>
>
> I am working on it now and will see if I can get a working version sorted
> in the next hour or so.  The PR number is in the commit, but just not in
> the format I was expecting.  It is at the end of the line in the format
> (#.).
>
>
>
> I will have something soon.
>
>
> *Will Stevens*
>
> CTO
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are
> using the Gitbox experiment.
> When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is
> an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is
> what happening.
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Will Stevens 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Paul,
> > Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are
> > handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we
> seem
> > to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge
> pull
> > request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.
> >
> > I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current
> way
> > we are merging the PRs.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > *Will Stevens*
> > CTO
> >
> > 
>
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey there Will,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Happy New Year to you!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
> > > 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the
> last
> > > release. And github token is obviously working.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ideas ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
> > > | Priority | Description
>   |
> > >
> > > +=+==++=
> > > ==+==+==
> > > ==+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
> > > | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2359`_ ||
> > > |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo)
>  |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
> > > | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity
>   |
> > >
> > > | |  ||
> > >   |  | group owned by the root domain
> > > |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#1981`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9806_   | New Feature
> > > | Major| Nuage domain template selection per VPC
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2005`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9450_   | Improvement
> > > | Major| Network Offering for VPC based on DB flag
>   |
> > >
> > > +-+--++-
> > > --+--+--
> > > --+
> > >
> > > | master  | `#2004`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9832_   | Improvement
> > > | Major| Do not assign public IP NIC t

Re: Release Notes

[Will Stevens]

Paul,
Please note that this tool only considers PR merges, so if a commit is made
directly against master, it will not show up in this list as it did not
have an associated PR.

Also, it may be worth noting that some PRs (like this one:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2211) are actually made up of
many different changes.  The different changes will all be associated with
that single PR.

One other thing.  I believe you are probably using the following (correctly
for now) as the branches:

"--branches":"4.9,4.10,master"

​However, when we do the real release notes, we will want to do it after
the 4.11 branch is cut and will want to run it with the following:

"--branches":"4.9,4.10,4.11"

​I hope that makes sense.  Let me know if you have any questions.

​Cheers,​

*Will Stevens*
CTO



On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Will Stevens  wrote:

> ​Hey Paul,
> You can pull down the latest code and everything should be working now: ​
> https://github.com/swill/generate_acs_rn
>
> I updated the tool to handle PRs merged through Github since I was
> originally only handling PRs which were merged through the `git pr `
> utility tool we had as part of our old process.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions or issues.  Thanks for pointing out
> this issue...  :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> *Will Stevens*
> CTO
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Paul Angus 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks guys!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Angus
>>
>>
>>
>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Will Stevens
>> *Sent:* 03 January 2018 16:01
>> *To:* dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> *Cc:* Paul Angus 
>> *Subject:* Re: Release Notes
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Rafael!
>>
>>
>>
>> I am working on it now and will see if I can get a working version sorted
>> in the next hour or so.  The PR number is in the commit, but just not in
>> the format I was expecting.  It is at the end of the line in the format
>> (#.).
>>
>>
>>
>> I will have something soon.
>>
>>
>> *Will Stevens*
>>
>> CTO
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are
>> using the Gitbox experiment.
>> When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is
>> an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is
>> what happening.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Will Stevens 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey Paul,
>> > Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we
>> are
>> > handling merging code.  Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we
>> seem
>> > to be doing something else.  This means that we don't have the "Merge
>> pull
>> > request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore.
>> >
>> > I will see if I can adapt the script to handle both the old and current
>> way
>> > we are merging the PRs.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > *Will Stevens*
>> > CTO
>> >
>> > 
>>
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Paul Angus 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hey there Will,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Happy New Year to you!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I seem to be getting a very truncated list.  I’m using
>> > > 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the
>> last
>> > > release. And github token is obviously working.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Any ideas ?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +-+--++-
>> > > --+--+--
>> > > --+
>> > >
>> > > | Branches| Github   | Jira   | Type
>> > > | Priority | Description
>>   |
>> > >
>> > > +=+==++=
>> > > ==+==+==
>> > > ==+
>> > >
>> > > | master  | `#2211`_ | CLOUDSTACK-10013_  | Bug
>> > > | Major| Migrate to Debian9 systemvmtemplate
>>   |
>> > >
>> > > +-+--++-
>> > > --+--+--
>> > > --+
>> > >
>> > > | master  | `#2359`_ ||
>> > > |  | doc: replace virutal by virtual (typo)
>>|
>> > >
>> > > +-+--++-
>> > > --+--+--
>> > > --+
>> > >
>> > > | master  | `#2124`_ | CLOUDSTACK-9432_   | Bug
>> > > | Critical | Dedicate Cluster to Domain always creates an affinity
>>   |
>> > >
>> > > |