I disagree with having only RMs to merge PRs when we're not in freeze. In
general we've implicitly honoured this behaviour but it was never voted. Our
RMs may not be as active as we want them to be, while they are historically
good at writing policies but it's hard to put them in practice and fu
GitHub user rhtyd opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
[blocker] cloudstack: fix upgrade paths to 4.10.0
This adds an upgrade to master since the recent 4.9 cut, adds an upgrade
path to the new code version 4.10. Without this PR all PRs to master are
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
testing
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-. Initiating automated
testing with Trillian shortly.
---
If your project is set up for it, you ca
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
code looks good.
I am seeing the following travis errors
`[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project travis-build-deps: Could not
resolve dependencies for project org.apache.cloudstack:t
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@karuturi thanks, I'll have a look why it failed
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Looks like this unit test failed: Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 1,
Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.773 sec <<< FAILURE! - in
org.apache.cloudstack.network.lb.ApplicationLoadBalancerTest
GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
[blocker] cloudstack: fix upgrade paths to 4.10.0
This adds an upgrade to master since the recent 4.9 cut, adds an upgrade
path to the new code version 4.10. Without this PR all PRs to master a
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@blueorangutan the link doesnt work
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
en
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@karuturi that's a bot account that will do packaging and testing for us
soon, I was testing it :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Looks like this unit test is known to consume a lot of memory: Tests run:
1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 4.918 sec - in
org.apache.cloudstack.network.lb.ApplicationLoadBalanc
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Where did you see the OOM error? I dont see it in travis logs
(this is for the previous travis job)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/149684289/log.txt
---
If your proje
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@karuturi on the machine which was building the rpm packages
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does no
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
The unit test again failed with Travis:
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 3.821 sec
<<< FAILURE! - in org.apache.cloudstack.network.lb.ApplicationLoadBalancerTest
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625. Initiating
automated testing with Trillian shortly.
---
If your project is set up for it, yo
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
I'm able to consistently reproduce the unit test failure on a machine with
similar memory as Travis (~8GB RAM):
searchForExistingLoadBalancer(org.apache.cloudstack.network.lb.ApplicationLoadBa
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
Ping for review and merge -- @karuturi @jburwell @agneya2001 @swill @wido
@DaanHoogland and others
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
GitHub user rhtyd opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
[blocker] Fix systemvm template build
Previous PR: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531
Fixes failing systemvmtemplate build.
You can merge this pull request into a Git reposit
Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
SystemVM template built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/custom/biggervarlog/.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have y
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625. Initiating
automated testing with Trillian shortly.
---
If your project is set up for it, yo
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
Packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1612. Initiating
automated testing with Trillian shortly.
---
If your project is set up for it, yo
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@karuturi all green now, can we merge this? /cc @jburwell
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
yup... started testing.. in progress.. will be done probably in 30 min..
you started automation run.. should we wait for that?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this e
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
@karuturi our Trillian job has hit an internal bug so the job died,
nevertheless a single run could take hours against real hypervisors (we've xen,
kvm and vmware). I'll keep you posted when we've
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1620
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Thanks @karuturi
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so,
GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1620
oobm: simply change password transactional logic
- Simplifies change password transactional logic without using pessmistic
locks
- Adds a re-enter password field in the UI to valid ipmi/oob
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
@karuturi can we also test/merge this. This is a packaging change that only
introduces 'cloudstack-marvin' and 'cloudstack-integration-tests' packages. The
above package build verifies that it doe
Still working through getting the release notes written. Hopefully will
have them finished in the next day or two.
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:39 AM
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1492
@ProjectMoon can you close/open the PR to re-kick Travis
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not ha
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1607
@ProjectMoon can you close/open the PR to re-kick Travis
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not ha
I will let the RMs for this release weigh in on this, but here are my
thoughts.
If we let anyone commit, I think the following rules MUST be followed:
- No commits directly to the repo, which are not a merge of a GitHub Pull
Request. So every change to the repo should be through `git pr ` usi
Rajani and Will,
It is actually not up to the release managers to make such a determination.
Our bylaws state that anyone with a commit bit can commit (or, if necessary,
rollback a commit). By granting someone a commit bit, we have imparted a trust
that an individual will protect the integrit
I am not saying that we should not let other people commit. I am saying
that we need to be clear about the process we expect them to follow. John,
yes, we have the principles that you linked, but are we enforcing them?
For example, these two commits were made directly to master without any
assoc
Hi All,
I've created a 4.8.2 release, with the following artifacts up for a vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/
4.8.2-RC20160804T1130
Commit: d6fdde04357625e4d2d8b5ef09aafd2a0741dc17
List of changes will be produced wi
Link didn't get auto-created correctly, so here it is again for everyone
who is using something like gmail as a client:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=
shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.8.2-RC20160804T1130
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Will Stevens
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've
Will,
My point is that Rajani and I’s opinions on this topic (or any other) carry no
more weight than any other committer. We have volunteered to herd the cats to
get releases out door.
What is CI? Within our community, there are many different definitions. I go
with the industry definition
So if a change requires 2 LGTM before it can be committed, does that not
require that a PR be created for every change in order for us to have a
forum for the LGTM consensus?
I am trying to make sure we are careful about reverting back to a
free-for-all commit strategy so we don't run into issues
Will,
My understanding of the release principles is that all changes must have a PR
with the exception of CVE fixes. Since we must accept CVE fixes in private,
the 2 LGTM rule is applied on the security@ mailing list and on private JIRA
security ticket. I would also say that the release commi
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
@rhtyd will test this tomorrow and commit
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feat
GitHub user rhtyd reopened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
[blocker] Fix systemvm template build
Previous PR: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1531
Fixes failing systemvmtemplate build.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repos
Github user rhtyd closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1615
Ping for second review -- @GabrielBrascher, @rhtyd, @wido,
@rafaelweingartner
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. I
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
Can you please create a JIRA ticket for this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1605
Ping for review -- @sateesh-chodapuneedi, @rhtyd, @koushik-das
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project d
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
Can you please create a JIRA ticket for this?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626#discussion_r73559738
--- Diff: tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/definition.rb ---
@@ -27,15 +27,15 @@
architectures = {
:i386 => {
:os_
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626#discussion_r73559749
--- Diff: tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/definition.rb ---
@@ -27,15 +27,15 @@
architectures = {
:i386 => {
:os_
Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1542
Hi @DaanHoogland @remibergsma @ustcweizhou,
I rebased master branch for this pull request as it's been opened for a
while, could it be reviewed please?
---
If your project is se
Github user nvazquez commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1560
Hi guys,
This pull request it's been opened for a while, @rafaelweingartner,
@bvbharatk you've reviewed it before, could you give your blessing to this PR?
CC: @swill
---
If
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622
RPM packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1622.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply app
John,
We understand the bylaws. But, practically we saw master in an unusable
state for many months. This is not just about trust. CloudStack is so vast
that its difficult for a single person to test all the affected areas. Many
a times, people does not even have enough hardware/knowledge to run
in
Yes, I agree with this.
CVEs need to be handled in security@ and will be added to the branches
manually once they have been agreed upon there, so no PRs are needed for
them.
I also agree that exceptions can be made for version changes in POMs and
such because those are scripted changes which are
We've discussed this and there are changes in XS7 which might break
Cloudstack. if you do end up testing this, let us know. We can try to fix
it.
-Syed
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Marty Godsey wrote:
> Should there be any issues running XS7 with CS 4.8?
>
> Regards,
> Marty Godsey
>
>
Rajani, you have very valid points and they echo my concerns.
I also agree that the CI (actual testing of PRs against real hardware
environments) is required in order for a PR to be committed. This is where
ALL the work is for the RM in the current process. As RM, I ended up with
10 CI environme
Hi Nicolas,
It would be preferable if you integrated that in the existing plugin. If
there are a lot of differences between NSX and NSX-T, you could create a
new Resource within the same plugin and based on a config decide which one
to use. Can you share more info between the differences between N
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1623
RPM packages built and available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1623.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply app
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Holy monkeys! Failed to build one or more CloudStack packages that would
have been available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625.
---
If your project is set u
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Holy monkeys! Failed to build one or more CloudStack
packages that would have been available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625.
---
If your project is set u
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Holy monkeys! Failed to build one or
more CloudStack packages that would have been available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625.
---
If your project is set u
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1625
Holy monkeys! Failed to build one or more CloudStack packages that
would have been available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1625.
---
If your project is set u
Github user blueorangutan commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1621
Holy monkeys! Failed to build one or more CloudStack
packages that would have been available at:
http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom/github-1621
---
If your project is set up
Will and Rajani,
I recall the motivations for the release principles well. Their primary
intention was to improve the testing and codify review requirements for commits
to a release branch. In my view, this goal does not require that only a few
people perform merges to release branches. We s
Hi Syed,
I've been comparing NSX 4.2 and NSX-T 1.0 and the main differences I could
find are:
- API url base, which change from /ws.v1/ to /api/v1/, API methods also
different, see attached Documentations
- There's a substantial difference in logical routers, NSX-T makes
difference be
This sounds good. I agree that not every PR needs full CI on hardware, but
I do think that every PR should have some form of verification that the
code does what it is intended to do. So for a UI change, it should include
a screenshot (for example).
The main point of this is that we maintain sta
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1623#discussion_r73604377
--- Diff: server/src/com/cloud/network/IpAddressManagerImpl.java ---
@@ -1698,6 +1698,22 @@ public String acquireGuestIpAddress(Network network,
String
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1623
@ProjectMoon have you run the ``test_redundant_router_cleanups``,
``test_redundant_router_services``, and ``test_redundant_router_upgrades`` test
cases for this PR?
Also, is there a JI
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622
@rhtyd Travis appears to have failed due to a missing file. Could you
please investigate?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHu
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622#discussion_r73605500
--- Diff: api/src/org/apache/cloudstack/api/response/TemplateResponse.java
---
@@ -169,6 +169,10 @@
@Param(description = "additional key/value
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622
@ProjectMoon is there a JIRA associated with this change?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does no
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/351
@anshul1886 @rhtyd it appears that there was a push to get this merged for
the 4.9 release, but a conflict may have occurred with the Dynamic Role-based
API Checker enhancement. Were you able t
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/384
@pritisarap12 @remibergsma referenced PR #720 which appears to implement a
similar set of tests. How do the tests in this PR differ?
it also appears that the Travis build is failing. C
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/540
@likitha is this PR still pertinent?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
en
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/669
@anshul1886 it appears that there was a push to get this PR into 4.9, but
@bvbharat found5 test failures and 3 skips. What is the status of resolving
these issues?
---
If your project is set
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/672#discussion_r73613017
--- Diff:
plugins/hypervisors/xenserver/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xenserver/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
---
@@ -1402,6 +1402,12 @@ public VM createW
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/672#discussion_r73613353
--- Diff:
plugins/hypervisors/xenserver/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xenserver/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
---
@@ -4251,6 +4257,34 @@ public void reboo
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/672
@anshul1886 could please squash the three commits and add the ticket
reference to the commit message?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appea
Github user jburwell commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/672#discussion_r73613647
--- Diff:
plugins/hypervisors/xenserver/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xenserver/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
---
@@ -4251,6 +4257,34 @@ public void reboo
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:41 PM, John Burwell
wrote:
> Will and Rajani,
>
> I recall the motivations for the release principles well. Their primary
> intention was to improve the testing and codify review requirements for
> commits to a release branch. In my view, this goal does not require tha
Github user rhtyd commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626#discussion_r73648560
--- Diff: tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/definition.rb ---
@@ -27,15 +27,15 @@
architectures = {
:i386 => {
:os_typ
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
@karuturi why do we need an explicit JIRA ID, I would copy the same things
as on this PR. It duplicates effort on my end with no benefits. When you a
merge a PR, it contains the history and ID of
GitHub user karuturi opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-docs-install/pull/28
corrected -d value while building rpm packages
Its listed as centos6 while its centos63.
Also added the help section for other available options
You can merge this pull request
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
@karuturi done.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/540
@jburwell Likitha has moved on, unlikely we'll hear from her or see further
development activity
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on Git
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1622
@ProjectMoon can you push -f or close+open this PR to re-kick Travis?
@jburwell Travis was failing on master due to a missing db path, a fix was
merged yesterday. All PRs with failing Travis/Je
Github user rhtyd commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/351
@anshul1886 can you rebase against latest master and push -f ?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does n
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
1. github is readonly and its difficult for me to track anything here. I
would not need if we had github issues and all the flexibility.
2. release notes etc. can be generated. In case there
Github user abhinandanprateek commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1626
LGTM on code review and tested the systemvm build on OSX.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your projec
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1612
I just realised that I started bulding centos7 pacakges on 4.7 which is not
supported now. Do you want this in 4.7 given that we dont do anymore releases
on it?
---
If your project is set up
92 matches
Mail list logo
