> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:27 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.4
>
> Why would we need that in a mail to dev@ Animesh? It is on the release
> dashboard.
[Animes
iginal Message-
>> From: Mike Tutkowski [mailto:mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:37 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.4
>>
>> Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well, bu
Leo, great work thanks
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> On 6/11/14, 6:36 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>>Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well,
>>but I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
>>
>>I know it might be a pa
I agree we shouldn't stop trying to get out 4.4 but we should not let
freeze for 4.5 slip. It will worsen the problem for next release. The
amount of work to get a release stable will grow if we
(over)compensate by letting more features get in the next relelase.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Jo
Hugo,
I would be -1 on the idea of combining 4.4 and 4.5. If we can’t get the change
set for 4.4 stabilized then what makes us think we would be successful
expanding it? We would be deferring the 4.4 risks to the 4.5 release and
increasing its overall scope. For 4.2, we push out the freeze d
Daan created jira public filters so they can be followed for the
release-notes:
Blockers: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12327112
Criticals: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12327119
Pierre-Luc Dion
Architecte de Solution Cloud | Cloud Solutions Architect
855-OK-CLOUD
I any case, even the new bug that Rayees will file, is not a blocker and
shouldn¹t hold cutting the RC.
-alena.
On 6/11/14, 3:27 PM, "Min Chen" wrote:
>Just looked at automation setup with Rayees, CLOUDSTACK-6825 is not really
>an issue of createTemplateFromSnapshot, the real issue is that the
re.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:37 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.4
>
> Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well, but
> I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
>
> I know it might be a pain
Just looked at automation setup with Rayees, CLOUDSTACK-6825 is not really
an issue of createTemplateFromSnapshot, the real issue is that the
snapshot passed to createTemplate command has its owner removed in DB,
thus causing checkAccess failure. As for why the snapshot is still not
removed when th
Thanks, Leo!
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> On 6/11/14, 6:36 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" > wrote:
> >Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well,
> >but I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
> >
> >I know it might be a pain, but I
Hey folks,
On 6/11/14, 6:36 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well,
>but I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
>
>I know it might be a pain, but I wonder if the RM would be willing to
>"nag"
>people every few days (just an e
Sounds reasonable
That being the case, do we feel we can build a first RC once our remaining
blockers are completed?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Daan Hoogland
wrote:
> Well, I think we should always treat the status of blocker that way.
> Something is a blocker if we feel it blocks us fro
Well, I think we should always treat the status of blocker that way.
Something is a blocker if we feel it blocks us from releasing. Not
just in this stage but always. (I think I am repeating myself a tad)
In fact I feel we must treat those 90 critical issues the same way and
I dare not start to thi
I agree - at this stage in the release, each blocker that remains should be
decided on a case-by-case basis if we still feel it is a blocker.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/11/14, 1:45 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>
> >I agree,
On 6/11/14, 1:45 PM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>I agree, but I wouldn't pin 'blocker' by a definition of the nature of
>the defect. A blocker is something that blocks the community at large
>from releasing. What you define here would be useful for more vague
>prio definitions like 'critical', thou
I agree, but I wouldn't pin 'blocker' by a definition of the nature of
the defect. A blocker is something that blocks the community at large
from releasing. What you define here would be useful for more vague
prio definitions like 'critical', though. Of course a major defect in
any of the hyperviso
I guess its time to define what qualifies to be called a blocker bug. Is
blocker something that:
1) happens on all the setups?
2) blocks core features from executing
Because I think that the bug happening on KVM only (lets say the vms fail
to start = core feature), can be considered as a blocker
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Alena Prokharchyk
wrote:
> If we confirm that its a race condition, then the bug should be punted to
> 4.5
or solve it?
--
Daan
If we confirm that its a race condition, then the bug should be punted to
4.5
On 6/11/14, 11:38 AM, "Min Chen" wrote:
>I have assigned CLOUDSTACK-6825 to me. But from the stack trace, it seems
>failing in doing check access on the snapshot owner that is not active
>anymore, feel like a racing co
It is said by evil tongues in this mail thread that me, the RM does
not nag enough about the 4.4 branch status and the bugs marked to
apply to it. Worse; those evil tongues might just be right. In can
hereby say without reservation and with full heart and soul that I
will better my life in this per
Seems to me there are two issues that comes up frequently when snapshots
on ACS+KVM are discussed on these lists;
1) There is an option to enable/disable snapshots on ACS with KVM
hypervisor, default is not enabled.
2) The "qemu-img convert" on recent RHEL6 systems lacks support for
the op
I have assigned CLOUDSTACK-6825 to me. But from the stack trace, it seems
failing in doing check access on the snapshot owner that is not active
anymore, feel like a racing condition happening on automation setup.
Rayees, several points to clarify:
1. Is this still happening on recent automation ru
But the blockers/criticals would keep coming unless its certified that the
new features have been tested with some confidence and that the basic
functionalities work.
Thanks,
-Nitin
On 11/06/14 10:33 AM, "Mike Tutkowski"
wrote:
>According to that list, we have four blockers remaining...all netw
Just need a way to get people to see branches through to release. Freeze
master or something. Releases will go out the door faster if it has to be
done.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote:
> CLOUDSTACK-6825 happens while doing object access
CLOUDSTACK-6825 happens while doing object access check in
ParamProcessWorker. Min/Prachi, can you take a look to see if its related
to RBAC feature?
-Alena.
On 6/11/14, 10:45 AM, "Amogh Vasekar" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>AFAIK a couple of Automation blockers [1] [2], which had no owner
>assigned, were m
Hi,
AFAIK a couple of Automation blockers [1] [2], which had no owner
assigned, were moved to critical.
[1] CLOUDSTACK-6842
[2] CLOUDSTACK-6825
Thanks,
Amogh
On 6/11/14 10:33 AM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>we have four blockers remaining...all network
>oriented.
>
>Murali Reddy has two. All f
According to that list, we have four blockers remaining...all network
oriented.
Murali Reddy has two. All four have an owner and presumably progress is
being made.
I guess it would be a good idea if we triaged critical defects and
determined once the blockers are done if any of those should be fi
Good point - what is the release criteria? Is it just no blockers or is it
no blockers and no criticals?
Triaging the bugs is a good idea, too. We should make sure they still are
what we have them listed as.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Alena Prokharchyk <
alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrot
Is there a list of issues, blockers, or todo items to be done in order to
have 4.4 out ? The only things I saw is the list of blocker currently
having 4 blocker (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-6602?filter=12327112)
Does this mean that even if all blockers are fixed getting the
On 6/11/14, 9:36 AM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well,
>but I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
>
>I know it might be a pain, but I wonder if the RM would be willing to
>"nag"
>people every few days (just an e-mail to de
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I’m getting somewhat concerned about the 4.4 release. We don’t seems to be
> able to get the 4.4 branch in shape for a release candidate and meanwhile
> master is diverging further and further. We also know that once we hit the
Yeah, I am concerned about 4.4 getting farther behind schedule, as well,
but I agree with David that we should not cancel it.
I know it might be a pain, but I wonder if the RM would be willing to "nag"
people every few days (just an e-mail to dev@) about the current list of
blockers and their prog
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I’m getting somewhat concerned about the 4.4 release. We don’t seems to be
> able to get the 4.4 branch in shape for a release candidate and meanwhile
> master is diverging further and further. We also know that once we hit t
Hey all,
I’m getting somewhat concerned about the 4.4 release. We don’t seems to be able
to get the 4.4 branch in shape for a release candidate and meanwhile master is
diverging further and further. We also know that once we hit the RC phase we
will probably need a sizable number of iterations
34 matches
Mail list logo
