Re: Status of Ubuntu 16.04 and systemd with 4.9 release

ext thing to fix. Kind of hard with Tomcat and such. Haven't looked at that yet. Wido > > Regards. > > > > > From: Wido den Hollander > Sent: 16 January 2017 21:20:08 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Status of

Re: Status of Ubuntu 16.04 and systemd with 4.9 release

-management work on Ubuntu 16.04 which is a much needed next step. Regards. From: Wido den Hollander Sent: 16 January 2017 21:20:08 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Status of Ubuntu 16.04 and systemd with 4.9 release Hi, One things on my list was t

Status of Ubuntu 16.04 and systemd with 4.9 release

Hi, One things on my list was to verify if CloudStack 4.9's agent would run on a Ubuntu 16.04 system. With the release of 4.9.2.0 I added 'xenial' (16.04) to cloudstack.apt-get.eu: http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/ubuntu/dists/xenial/4.9/ Just added the repo: root@alpha:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.li

Re: 4.9+ release

t;>>>> language features. Based on this proposal, the releases above would >>>> change >>>>> to the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> * 4.10 releasing on or about 28 August 2016 >>>>>> * 4.11 releasing on

Re: 4.9+ release

>>>> * 5.0.0 releasing on or about 18 December 2016 > >>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017 > >>>> > >>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki. If this > >>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there

Re: 4.9+ release

g on or about 18 December 2016 >>>>> * 5.1.0 release on or about 5 February 2017 >>>>> >>>>> I am in the process of moving my proposal into the wiki. If this >>>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to >>

Re: 4.9+ release

gt; >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> john.burw...@shapeblue.com >>>> www.shapeblue.com >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK >>>> @shapeblue >>&

Re: 4.9+ release

f moving my proposal into the wiki. If this >>> approach is acceptable, I will reflect it there, and open a thread to >>> discuss 5.0.0. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> jo

Re: 4.9+ release

den, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > > > @shapeblue > > > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Paul Angus > > wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 Daan. > > >> > > >> My recollection was that major version number changes w

Re: 4.9+ release

Paul Angus > wrote: > >> > >> +1 Daan. > >> > >> My recollection was that major version number changes were only to be > triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API). > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Paul A

Re: 4.9+ release

t;> triggered by breaks in backward compatibility (API). >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Paul Angus >> >> paul.an...@shapeblue.com >> www.shapeblue.com >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >> @shapeblue >> >> >> &g

Re: 4.9+ release

shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47 > To: dev > Cc: Rajani Karuturi > Subjec

RE: 4.9+ release

- From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 June 2016 14:47 To: dev Cc: Rajani Karuturi Subject: Re: 4.9+ release You know that would require more then one byte for our minor version, Will. I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43

Re: 4.9+ release

You know that would require more then one byte for our minor version, Will. I would be very pleased to go to 5.0 before that time. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Will Stevens wrote: > Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256. :P > > *Will STEVENS* > Lead Developer > > *CloudOps* *| *Clo

Re: 4.9+ release

Daan is just trying to get us to version 4.256. :P *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > -1 to what Wido said. None of those

Re: 4.9+ release

-1 to what Wido said. None of those points warant a major release number upgrade. these should all be in 4.10, -.11, -12 etc. major incompatibilities like API refactor, dropping backend support for this or that hyporvisor or DB refactor are the things that warrant 5.0, IMNSHO On Tue, Jun 14, 2016

Re: 4.9+ release

+1. :) On Jun 14, 2016 5:07 AM, "Wido den Hollander" wrote: > > > Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi : > > > > > > 4.10 or 5.0? > > > > I would say 4.10 > > > We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long time. > > Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on major changes which > wa

Re: 4.9+ release

+1 to what Wido said. I think we should not be incrementing the major version unless we're breaking compatibility, introducing major UI/API/db changes. Regards, Rohit Yadav rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com  www.shapeblue.com 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue On Jun 14 2

Re: 4.9+ release

+1 what Wido said -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro - Original Message - > From: "Wido den Hollander" > To: "Rajani Karuturi" , dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, 14 June, 2016 10:07:01 > Subject: Re: 4.9+ r

Re: 4.9+ release

> Op 14 juni 2016 om 10:55 schreef Rajani Karuturi : > > > 4.10 or 5.0? > I would say 4.10 > We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long time. > Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on major changes which warrants > 5.0 > 5.0 should imho be: - Java 8 - Ubuntu 16.04 / systemd support

4.9+ release

4.10 or 5.0? We are in the 4.* release cycle from a long time. Just wanted to check if anyone is planning on major changes which warrants 5.0 ~Rajani

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

> Op 8 juni 2016 om 3:01 schreef Will Stevens : > > > Yes. I agree. I need to get some commitment from someone to test it though. > I need to figure out how to test it once it gets in. Any takers for > validating this works after it goes in? We tested it as it's running in production. In the PR

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

Yes. I agree. I need to get some commitment from someone to test it though. I need to figure out how to test it once it gets in. Any takers for validating this works after it goes in? On Jun 7, 2016 8:54 PM, "ilya" wrote: Sounds like a bug fix to me.. Bug fixes should be allowed in my opinion. O

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

Sounds like a bug fix to me.. Bug fixes should be allowed in my opinion. On 6/7/16 4:07 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: >> Op 28 mei 2016 om 0:34 schreef Will Stevens : >> >> >> Hey All, >> I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a >> PR that you wanted to get in tha

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

> Op 28 mei 2016 om 0:34 schreef Will Stevens : > > > Hey All, > I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a > PR that you wanted to get in that didn't make it. I pushed my deadline for > the freeze a bit because I had a lot of PRs that were close and I was able >

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

om: Will Stevens > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 4:34 PM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release > > > > Hey All, > > I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have > a > > PR that you

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

rom: Will Stevens > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 4:34 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release > > Hey All, > I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a > PR that you wanted to get in that didn't make

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

4:34 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release Hey All, I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a PR that you wanted to get in that didn't make it. I pushed my deadline for the freeze a bit because I had a lot of PRs th

Re: Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

reads like a plan, Will. :+1: On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > Hey All, > I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a > PR that you wanted to get in that didn't make it. I pushed my deadline for > the freeze a bit because I had a lot of PRs

Master is frozen for the 4.9 release

Hey All, I think I have done what I can do at this point. I am sorry if you have a PR that you wanted to get in that didn't make it. I pushed my deadline for the freeze a bit because I had a lot of PRs that were close and I was able to get a bunch of them in. I plan to wait about a week before I

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

59:37 > Subject: Re: PRs for 4.9 Release > Thanks, created > > https://github.com/NuxRo/cloudstack/pull/1 > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > - Original Message - >> From: "Remi Bergsma"

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Thanks, created https://github.com/NuxRo/cloudstack/pull/1 -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro - Original Message - > From: "Remi Bergsma" > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2016 09:09:26 > Subject: R

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

t; >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2016 17:15:38 >> Subject: PRs for 4.9 Release > >> I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source some >> info to be more effective. >> >> I am slowly getting thin

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

- > From: "Will Stevens" > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2016 17:15:38 > Subject: PRs for 4.9 Release > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source some > info to be more effective. > > I am slowly getting things r

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Will Stevens wrote: > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source some > info to be more effective. > > I am slowly getting things rolling for the 4.9 release. My CI is chugging > away and I have a queue of PRs to get te

4.9 Release Schedule

release every month or two going forward. *Master will be frozen in prep for the 4.9 release on Monday May 16th. This gives us a month to get everything in that we think is important. I am hoping to have the 4.9 RC voted on and approved before June 1st.* Let me know if you have any questions and I

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

e on updateVM API call > #1297 > > " > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1297 > > > > -- > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > > > Nux! > > www.nux.ro > > > > - Original Mes

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

; > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > - Original Message - > > From: "Will Stevens" > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2016 17:15:38 > > Subject: PRs for 4.9 Release > > > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need t

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

- > From: "Will Stevens" > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2016 17:15:38 > Subject: PRs for 4.9 Release > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source some > info to be more effective. > > I am slowly getting thing

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Thank you sir. I have added it to my queue. :) *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote: > Hi Will, > > I’d propose to test this one

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Hi Will, I’d propose to test this one as it fixes a nasty concurrency issue. I runs on prod at SBP for some time now so I’m quite sure it’s solid but let’s run the tests again to be sure. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1470 Regards, Remi On 08/04/16 20:56, "williamstev...@gmail

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Thanks for the items syed. I have added them to my active list. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Syed Mushtaq wrote: > Hi Will, > > Thanks for a

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Hi Will, Thanks for all the effort you've put into getting the PRs moving. This is huge for the community. >From my side, I have these two PRs which I think are critical as they fix broken functionality. https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1423 : This fixes client side VPN failure due to I

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

If you are using bubble, here are a few more 'tweaks'. The 'bubble-blueprint' is missing the following, so you will need to do the following after you run it: $ systemctl stop firewalld $ systemctl disable firewalld Also, if you are using a static IP, you will have to manually add the following

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

For those interested: Fred and I have some adjustments for Fedora and as Cloudstack we need to remain at java 1.7 for now while the SBP guys are ahead of us at 1.8. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote: > Great to see more and more people use the bubbles! > > Setting up: > https:/

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Great to see more and more people use the bubbles! Setting up: https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/bubble-blueprint Using: https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/bubble-toolkit Happy testing :-) Regards, Remi > On 07 Apr 2016, at 19:56, Will Stevens wrote: > > If you want me to verif

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Yes, we'll be testing these on real hardware. From: williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:59 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: PRs for 4.9 Release Awesome, thanks for the list Simon. Wil

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

___ > From: Rafael Weingärtner > Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:48 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: PRs for 4.9 Release > > Hi Will, thanks for such a great job. > I was going over the PRs we have in our merge list; I did a walk through >

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

If you want me to verify things in your env, you can send me a tmate and I can have a look. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6 w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_ On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Da

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

yes, makes perfect sense. I skipped 1326 for now, I just tried to build 1436 it fails in the rpm build fase. I am now going to try that ui thing to build confidence in my test environment. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Rafael Weingärtner < rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure it makes. >

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

ael Weingärtner Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:48 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: PRs for 4.9 Release Hi Will, thanks for such a great job. I was going over the PRs we have in our merge list; I did a walk through till page 5, the others one I believe will require more work and some of the f

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Sure it makes. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Will Stevens wrote: > Yes, if the PR is ONLY a test and does not touch any other code then we can > only run that test. I agree with you. > > If any code is changed outside the test, I always run the full suite. Make > sense? > > *Will STEVENS* >

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Yes, if the PR is ONLY a test and does not touch any other code then we can only run that test. I agree with you. If any code is changed outside the test, I always run the full suite. Make sense? *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|*

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

running a new test in an environment should pass but should not require all other test being re-validated. SO what is the point of running all others? I am not saying we shouldn't regularly run all tests but in this case it adds no value AFAICT. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Will Stevens wrote

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Yes, I agree we only need to run tests against the branch it was created on. It probably SHOULD be done against all branches it will be merged into, but we need to have things streamlined a bit more for that to be viable IMO. *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts 4

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1459 > > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1457 > > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1450 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Wi

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

Yes, I want to run tests against the tests. I have found issues in some of the tests not working as expected, so I add the test to the run and run them. I think it is worth it because then we know the test is valid later. I would rather have the author fix the test now if there are problems than

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

IMO, we only need to run the test and check if it works against the branch that it was created upon. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > 1326 is just a test. it does not touch production code. Do we run > regression tests against such PRs. seems a waste to me. > > On Thu, Apr

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

1326 is just a test. it does not touch production code. Do we run regression tests against such PRs. seems a waste to me. On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Daan Hoogland > wrote: > >> 1326 - master (*pending CI) > > > ​starting​ > > > > --

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > 1326 - master (*pending CI) ​starting​ -- Daan

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1428 > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1423 > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1459 > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1457 > > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudsta

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

; >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1459 > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1457 > >- https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1450 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Will Stevens > > wrote: > > > &g

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

> > > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source > some > > info to be more effective. > > > > I am slowly getting things rolling for the 4.9 release. My CI is > chugging > > away and I have a queue of PRs to get tested, so

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

rote: > > > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source > some > > info to be more effective. > > > > I am slowly getting things rolling for the 4.9 release. My CI is > chugging > > away and I have a queue of PRs to get tested, so

Re: PRs for 4.9 Release

ling for the 4.9 release. My CI is chugging > away and I have a queue of PRs to get tested, so I will be getting through > them as quickly as I can. I have finally gotten to where I have a > relatively steady stream of merges going in and I am working through final > logistics on a

PRs for 4.9 Release

I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source some info to be more effective. I am slowly getting things rolling for the 4.9 release. My CI is chugging away and I have a queue of PRs to get tested, so I will be getting through them as quickly as I can. I have finally

Re: 4.9 Release Management

l, 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 03/03/16, 9:20 AM, "Koushik Das" wrote: > > > >Thanks Will for initiating t

Re: 4.9 Release Management

>Thanks Will for initiating the discussion on 4.9 release management. As >already mentioned, I along with Patrick will be helping out Will with the >release process. > >Having a reliable CI system is very important going forward. There are >discussions already happening in the l

Re: 4.9 Release Management

to more manageable releases going forward. > > Best > > Samir > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 9:15 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: 4.9 Releas

Re: 4.9 Release Management

People, I agree that CI is an important issue and I thank Will for taking owner ship. Will: Thank you. I will keep watching the builds.apache.org part of it and hammer on new or old :/s findbugs issues that come up. 4.9 and CI are not related directly. CI would be related to release process and no

Re: 4.9 Release Management

Thanks Will for initiating the discussion on 4.9 release management. As already mentioned, I along with Patrick will be helping out Will with the release process. Having a reliable CI system is very important going forward. There are discussions already happening in the list related to it. I

Re: 4.9 Release Management

; > figure out. I know the feeling. :) > > > > We probably need to have a concensus around release cadence and stick to > > it for a while. Otherwise we're going to lose some credibility as > project. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Will Steven

Re: 4.9 Release Management

out. I know the feeling. :) >> >> We probably need to have a concensus around release cadence and stick to >> it for a while. Otherwise we're going to lose some credibility as project. >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Will Stevens >> Se

Re: 4.9 Release Management

can do to help. > > - Si > > > From: Paul Angus > Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:09 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: 4.9 Release Management > > That's good enough for me (tm). you're figurin

Re: 4.9 Release Management

> > From: Will Stevens > Sent: 2 Mar 2016 20:46 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: 4.9 Release Management > > I don't think I can answer that at this time. My personal opinion is that > CI is more important than the release timeline, but others may not s

Re: 4.9 Release Management

Will, You have our support! Let us know what we can do to help. - Si From: Paul Angus Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 3:09 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.9 Release Management That's good enough for me (tm). you're figuring ou

Re: 4.9 Release Management

ent: 2 Mar 2016 20:46 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: 4.9 Release Management I don't think I can answer that at this time. My personal opinion is that CI is more important than the release timeline, but others may not share this opinion (as it is only my opinion). I am full s

Re: 4.9 Release Management

received this email in error. > > > -Original Message- > From: Will Stevens [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] > Sent: 02 March 2016 17:15 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: 4.9 Release Management > > Hello Everyone, > I have mentioned this in other rela

RE: 4.9 Release Management

7:15 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: 4.9 Release Management Hello Everyone, I have mentioned this in other related threads, but I wanted to make an official thread on the topic. I am nominating myself as the release manager for 4.9. Please feel free to discuss if you have comments or conc

RE: 4.9 Release Management

, 2016 9:15 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: 4.9 Release Management Hello Everyone, I have mentioned this in other related threads, but I wanted to make an official thread on the topic. I am nominating myself as the release manager for 4.9. Please feel free to discuss if you have comments

4.9 Release Management

Hello Everyone, I have mentioned this in other related threads, but I wanted to make an official thread on the topic. I am nominating myself as the release manager for 4.9. Please feel free to discuss if you have comments or concerns. I will not be working alone, I will be assisted by Koushik Da