> On June 29, 2013, 12:29 a.m., Devdeep Singh wrote:
> > Ship It!
Kindly close the review request
- Devdeep
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12101/#review22554
Alex,
+1
From the jenkins side we could make more jobs with parameters so anyone can
kick-off a test run on his/her branch. I don't know if that would work for the
BVT tests though.
This only thing i'm a bit afraid of is the technical side of reverting a merge.
It's one of those this that you
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12180/
---
(Updated June 29, 2013, 12:48 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Chip Childer
Prasanna, all those 4 object_store related bugs should have been fixed in
master, I tested 3 templates related bugs by running marvin test suite
test_template.py on my local xen setup, and they are all passed:
Mins-MacBook-Pro:tmp minc$ more testresult.log
test_01_create_template (test_templates.T
> This only thing i'm a bit afraid of is the technical side of reverting a
> merge. It's
> one of those this that you need to be careful with in git.
I think this means all merges must come in as one big squashed patch. If they
come in as multiple commits or rebase, then it gets reverted automa
Given the current state of BVT, I don't think we can reliably merge this into
master. It will have to wait for 4.3. I apologize to those who really want to
see this feature in. I myself have slaved over this for some weeks, including
missing the collab conference, but I just cannot conscienti
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12185/
---
Review request for cloudstack.
Repository: cloudstack-git
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/11953/
---
(Updated June 29, 2013, 2:35 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack.
Repository:
Hi,
As suggested on the users mailing list, I ask this question again
here...
I've managed it to install CloudStack on Virtualbox: One VM with Ubuntu
where the management server is installed as described in the official
documentation (.deb packages) and a DevCloud2 VM which acts as
Virtuali
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> After Dave's complain in the vmsync [MERGE] thread about BVT in horrible
> shape on master, I went around to figure out what exactly happened. The best
> I can figure is that after a certain merge (I will leave out which merge as
> that's no
Hugo, thanks for the quick fix. I'll verify it on Monday when I have access
to the server.
But can you briefly explain why the OSS-build wouldn't have this problem?
Ryan
Hugo Trippaers 於 2013年6月29日星期六寫道：
> Hello :-)
>
> Nice find!
>
> I've pushed this commit to the branch:
>
> commit b330f2aa9
Hey Ryan,
This is left-over from older versions. The nonoss build used to be a premium
build and had a few differences in the database. Hence the two different
database upgrade classes.
It should go away soon :-)
Cheers,
Hugo
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 jun. 2013, at 20:46, Ryan Lei wrote:
Hi,
I got the same issue. Log say "there is no secondary storage..." and I see
no record for ssvm in host table in DB.
I cc your question to dev maillist. Anyone can help?
Sent from my GT-N7000
On 29 Jun 2013 03:30, "Tim Schultheiss"
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a CS 4.1 zone with XenServer 6.1
Awesome, I'll send the report of the trend this week of the bvt.
Thanks,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 01:08:58AM +, Min Chen wrote:
> Prasanna, all those 4 object_store related bugs should have been fixed in
> master, I tested 3 templates related bugs by running marvin test suite
> test_template.p
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:18:17AM +, Alex Huang wrote:
> After Dave's complain in the vmsync [MERGE] thread about BVT in
> horrible shape on master, I went around to figure out what exactly
> happened. The best I can figure is that after a certain merge (I
> will leave out which merge as that
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:45:02PM -0400, John Burwell wrote:
> Prasanna,
>
> I am all for static analysis, but I think we should discuss it before
> implementation to ensure that the community is in sync on the rules
> and priority. I am of the belief that static analysis shouldn't check
> for v
101 - 116 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
