On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:26:22AM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> Prasanna,
>
> What if we made passing the Jenkins tests a pre-requisite to open
> voting? In such a scenario, the test report from the Jenkins build
> would be attached to the voting email.
>
Absolutely,
We already do check that a
Prasanna,
What if we made passing the Jenkins tests a pre-requisite to open voting? In
such a scenario, the test report from the Jenkins build would be attached to
the voting email.
Thanks,
-John
On Jun 7, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:48:14PM -060
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:48:14PM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Ok. Do we need to call a vote or something to change our rules to
> solidify that we should require at least two votes from each supported
> platform, whether they be automated tests or contributor tests?
>
I'd encourage that. Tha
Ok. Do we need to call a vote or something to change our rules to
solidify that we should require at least two votes from each supported
platform, whether they be automated tests or contributor tests?
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Prasanna Santhanam
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:04:55AM +
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 09:04:55AM +0200, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 08:37 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:29:26AM +0200, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
> >>On 06/06/2013 07:10 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:39:16PM +, Edison Su wrote:
> >>
On 06/06/2013 08:37 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:29:26AM +0200, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
On 06/06/2013 07:10 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:39:16PM +, Edison Su wrote:
I think we miss a VOTE from Jenkins, the vote from Jenkins should
be take
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:29:26AM +0200, Ove Ewerlid wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 07:10 AM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:39:16PM +, Edison Su wrote:
> >>I think we miss a VOTE from Jenkins, the vote from Jenkins should
> >>be taken as highest priority in each release. Thi
on a sufficiently big
test fixture.
Q: How many hosts are used in daily testing now?
/Ove
-Original Message-
From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:03 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: KVM development, libvirt
It looks like a
environment).
>
+1 - need more people focussed on cloudstack-infra in general.
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:03 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: KVM develop
shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:03 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: KVM development, libvirt
>
>It looks like a bug was probably introduced into 4.1, where stock Ubuntu
> 12.04 doesn't support part of the libvirt xml format for system
I mean upgrade libvirt.
-Wei
I am sorry I have met this issue but ignored it as it worked after upgrade.
I agree with that we should test on each OS. For the new feature, we
should check the minimal software version at first.
For the issue,is it ok to tell users the upgrade process in the
installation guide on website?
-Wei
It looks like a bug was probably introduced into 4.1, where stock
Ubuntu 12.04 doesn't support part of the libvirt xml format for system
vms. I feel bad that it got in there, but I think it highlights an
issue that needs to be addressed within our development. Libvirt
versioning is somewhat of
13 matches
Mail list logo
