---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13992/
---
(Updated Sept. 9, 2013, 8:09 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and edison su.
+1 to Darren's 'We should be careful about "no X, no commit"' One
exception though; (unit)tests. And I can live with a #!human script
like Marty describes. Even though your point is valid, David,
developers (like me) have an internal company need for a fix or a
feature, and are inclined to work on
good, Dave. At it!
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Saksham Srivastava
wrote:
> Congrats Dave.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 7:51 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Dave C
H, Is anybody still using these?
http://markmail.org/message/xixk3pnxa7g7ykyx Missing resize volume
button for users in 4.1.1? by Salvatore Sciacco
http://markmail.org/message/o47d6xh7na6qjmgb Web console cannot go up
in CloudStack 4.1.1 + XenServer 6.1 by Minh
regards
http://markmail.org/message/5pfd3por7uvhntgh Change vncterm in
XenServer 6.0.2 for CloudStack 4.1.1 by Minh
regards,
http://markmail.org/message/ks6rikz4zgocvwep CloudStack + XCP by
Thomas Schneider
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:40:30AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> -1 ... sorry guys, especially with Simon chiming in.
>
> I'd request f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9 be cherry-picked.
Agreed.
I'm -1, given simon's perspective as well. Since we have the fix, let's
get it into the rele
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13992/#review25989
---
please ignore the r2 version for issue CLOUDSTACK-3565
- Wei Zhou
-1 from me as well.
I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's very important to
preserve key underlying functionality across releases. If a supported and
documented feature is known to be broken, we need to address it...if we don't,
it's going to cause lots of pain, and refl
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:42:48AM -0400, Simon Weller wrote:
> -1 from me as well.
>
>
> I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's very important to
> preserve key underlying functionality across releases. If a supported and
> documented feature is known to be broken, we nee
There are still 10 unresolved issues that I have reported which should
be fixed before It is released.
There is not much point releasing a system that will not install if you
follow the instructions provided!
Ron
On 09/09/2013 12:10 AM, Travis Graham wrote:
The vote has been extended until
As part of the work to pull apart orchestration from self service, I made some
changes to how configuration parameters work. The problem with the current
system are as follows:
- configuration variables are all stored as enums in Config.java which means
plugins have to modify a single file. W
I would agree, being someone who is interested in deploying CloudStack and
has been following the dev list for a while now to see what the status is,
I wouldn't touch this release with a 10 foot pole. Especially after the
last few build failures I've had. I understand the need to draw the line
but
Its the consequence of our anemic testing capability compared to the
feature set. I don't think we can accept regressions in general at all for
storage types, hypervisor types, network, etc unless it is due to an
abandoned feature, otherwise it will be impossible for people to navigate a
swiss chee
We just need to have basic automated testing of every core supported
platform. With 4.1 we released a product that didn't even work on Ubuntu
KVM, nobody tested it. As long as we rely on devs to individually test
things at their leisure, we will always end up with 3-4 round release
votes. An RC s
Looks great Alex,
One question; Adding a scope or a multiplier is featured on the wiki
but not specified. Can you add a pointer to it?
Very nice indeed,
Daan
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> As part of the work to pull apart orchestration from self service, I made
> some cha
hear hear,
but this can not be managed if not automated. not in 4 months or, with
a product like ACS not on a halve year basis. Weren't you advocating a
release dedicated to automated testing in another thread, Marcus?
Daan
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> We just need t
John,
I understand. The effort we did in 4.1 was mainly to free developers from
the needs to work at low-level plumbing layer, prior to 4.1, not every
developer knows how to modify ComponentLocator safely, switching to a
standard framework can let us focus on Cloud operating business logic.
Break
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:25 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:42:48AM -0400, Simon Weller wrote:
> > -1 f
Agree with Animesh.
>From a somewhat selfish perspective, I've gone through 2 rounds of
testing, not relishing the 3rd round.
There are literally hundreds of features in CloudStack. Another delay
could bring one more bug (existing perhaps, or newly introduced).
And another round of testing.
Draw t
I just ran into this. For whatever reason my box listed eth2 before
eth0 for "ifconfig -a" so it looked like management server mac changed.
Then nothing worked... I finally just hacked up the code to get it to
work again.
So whats the real procedure if you do a chassis swap and your managem
Hi All,
I was curious is there is a known set of API calls that will/should work
when CloudStack is in simulator mode?
Some background. I'm running CS 4.2 (commit
8d043c0e4d4c9ace8628f542eacf19e5339e28e8 to be specific), on rhel 6.3
64-bit, built from source following simulator instructions here
Animesh,
Without wanting to pass judgement on the quality of those tests or the
accuracy with which they were performed, there is now a mismatch
between what passed those tests and what people expect to work in the
current release. I assume that the tests where performed at an
acceptable level of
Alex,
I looked up the constructors and figured it out. next question is
about two of them:
public ConfigKey(Class type, String name, String category,
String defaultValue, String description, boolean isDynamic);
and
public ConfigKey(String category, Class type, String name,
String defaultV
On 09/09/2013 10:20 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
As part of the work to pull apart orchestration from self service, I made some
changes to how configuration parameters work. The problem with the current
system are as follows:
- configuration variables are all stored as enums in Config.java which mea
Daan,
Yeah... I would have preferred to use the first constructor only just because
it makes more sense. The problem is the second constructor saved me a lot of
typing when I convert from the enums in Config.java to using this class. So I
kept both in there. I think as long as it's no ambigu
I did see those tests, but they were this round, and they don't cover any
of the things I mentioned.
On Sep 9, 2013 12:31 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi"
wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:10 AM
> > To:
On 09/09/2013 12:41 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> The problem is the second constructor saved me a lot of typing when I
convert from the enums in Config.java to using this class.
You could immediately deprecate the new method :)
I think that Animesh is trying to stress what is "key". If it hits 1% of
cloud operators is it key?
On 9/9/13 7:42 AM, "Simon Weller" wrote:
>-1 from me as well.
>
>
>I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's very
>important to preserve key underlying functionality across rele
The current implementation of simulator has its own limitation: the simulator
itself is a separate hypervisor type, thus a lot of condition checks against
hypervisor type in mgt server will fail if simulator is used.
For example, currently, the zone wide primary storage only works for vmware and
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:10 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>
> We just need to have basic automated testing of every core supported
> pl
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:50 AM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>
> Animesh,
>
> Without wanting to pass judgement on the quality of those tests or the
> accura
Do we have any statistics that say how many of our customers are using
feature x, feature y, etc.?
If not, I would say if we know about a feature that has regressed to the
point of breakage in 4.2 that it should be fixed before releasing (or at
the very least well documented, so - if it is impactf
> -Original Message-
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 1:46 PM
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>
> I think we are hitting a well documented feature of open source here,
> Mike. If someone is re
There was one other thing I saw come through regarding KVM bridges,
that should probably be added as well, but I haven't looked at it
extensively, maybe someone else can confirm.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future r
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/13771/#review26002
---
Commit 25c8cee01a450ee924fe108cafe54b046485ab2b in branch refs/heads
On 9/8/13 4:21 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have a couple questions regarding how hypervisor snapshots work in
>XenServer and ESX through CloudStack.
>
>For XenServer, let's say I have a root disk on SR1 and a data disk on SR2.
>
>1) If we take a hypervisor snapshot, do we snapshot bot
On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
>> wrote:
>>> Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and
>> more automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating
>> for and Prasanna ha
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
> wrote:
> > Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and
> more automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating
> for and Prasanna has done outstanding working on BVT, jenkins and the
> test matrix)
I think we are hitting a well documented feature of open source here,
Mike. If someone is reporting it, someone is testing it. if someone is
testing it someone is using it. Meaning the reported issues are being
used. If it is by one or by one percent is not or should not be
important.
The fact they
Umm, it requires a majority of +1 binding votes to release. -1 is not an
automatic veto.
On 9/9/13 2:01 PM, "Sebastien Goasguen" wrote:
>Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and
>more automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating for
>and Prasanna
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 2:04 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Daan Hoogland [m
Why can't we cover every use case, Marcus. We will need help from
users, but if they do help it will be easy to do so.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I was actually talking about separate things in relation to this
> thread and the other where I mentioned that I'd like
On 9/9/13 12:07 PM, "Darren Shepherd" wrote:
>I just ran into this. For whatever reason my box listed eth2 before
>eth0 for "ifconfig -a" so it looked like management server mac changed.
> Then nothing worked...
It is supposed to work if you are sure a previous running MS java process
is kil
I was actually talking about separate things in relation to this
thread and the other where I mentioned that I'd like to see a release
focused on bugfixing and testing. With that, I'm advocating a test for
every api call and focusing on broadening use case test coverage.
Here, I'm simply talking
Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and more
automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating for and
Prasanna has done outstanding working on BVT, jenkins and the test matrix), we
need to focus on how to get 4.2 out.
Marcus has a binding -1, so tha
It's doable in theory, but the issue is that in reality nobody looks
at it until it's out the door. It's a similar issue with feature
branches, they get merged, and it's not until after the merge that
people say "hey, this breaks all sorts of stuff", because the devs
don't necessarily know all of t
Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh is
correct on this.
Just as a reminder on the terms of a release vote as per the by-laws
(http://cloudstack.apache.org/bylaws.html)
"3.4.4. Product Release
When a release of one of the project's products is ready, a vote is
re
4.1.1 is actually using SSL tunneling port 443 opened at XS host to
connect to VNC terminal. Changing VNC configuration in XS host does not
help to resolve the console connectivity issue.
Kelven
On 9/9/13 3:14 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>http://markmail.org/message/5pfd3por7uvhntgh Change vncte
Thanks for that info on VMware snapshots, Kelven!
Anyone have insight into XenServer here?
Thanks!
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Kelven Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/13 4:21 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I have a couple questions regarding how hypervisor snapshots work in
> >XenSe
Would like provide some perspective on testing efforts done. All test plans,
results, automation has been posted to community and I took the data from that
only[1].
Thanks for raising the issues around testing before code check-in. This would
help in all fronts esp frontloading quality. Ena
Hi,
I am building from master and am trying to add a Netscaler VPX to my
network config but I keep getting the following error
Unable to find the Network Element implementing the Service Provider
'Netscaler'
Also, when opening the page for listing Netscaler devices I get another
error saying
+1(binding), tested on devcloud, and based on the QA's recently test result,
seems it's stabilized for a while now(QA team didn't "bother" me for a few
weeks:))
> -Original Message-
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:43
> On Sept. 5, 2013, 4:53 a.m., ASF Subversion and Git Services wrote:
> > Commit 0fb2014d19832a6e747a5c0775cd7c16f5ff786b in branch refs/heads/master
> > from Girish Shilamkar
> > [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=0fb2014 ]
> >
> > CLOUDSTACK-4531: Resolved ssh error
I was not building a nonoss build and hence getting the error. Fixed it
now. Sorry for the spam.
Thanks,
-Syed
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Syed Mushtaq wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am building from master and am trying to add a Netscaler VPX to my
> network config but I keep getting the following err
Sorry, I should have declared my vote as binding, I meant to.
That's great news that we are improving teat coverage like that. What
procedures need to be followed if we need to add to that or find holes? I
could run daily KVM tests, do I use the Jenkins api to report results, or
can we request som
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen
> >> wrote:
> >>> Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future rel
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mathias Mullins
wrote:
> Technically I don't see any binding -1 vetoes being declared. Animesh is
> correct on this.
>
>
I don't have to write "Binding" next to my vote. Votes are technically
"binding" when the person voting is considered to have binding vote.
Also
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Edison Su wrote:
> The current implementation of simulator has its own limitation: the
> simulator itself is a separate hypervisor type, thus a lot of condition
> checks against hypervisor type in mgt server will fail if simulator is used.
> For example, currently,
With current setup, you can request to run tests on a dev branch if need to run
- I am sure we are not equipped to run tests for every check-in, but if
community is making architectural changes, definitely that can be accommodated.
Within the boundaries of what has been automated we can run auto
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:53:45PM +, Kelven Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/13 12:07 PM, "Darren Shepherd" wrote:
>
> >I just ran into this. For whatever reason my box listed eth2 before
> >eth0 for "ifconfig -a" so it looked like management server mac changed.
> > Then nothing worked...
>
> I
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:08:11AM -0400, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Edison Su wrote:
>
> > The current implementation of simulator has its own limitation: the
> > simulator itself is a separate hypervisor type, thus a lot of condition
> > checks against hypervisor typ
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/14058/
---
(Updated Sept. 10, 2013, 5:53 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Girish Shila
63 matches
Mail list logo
