Hi everyone,
Would you think it's worth tightening the checkstyle rules and run a
reformatting pass on the code base to align everything slowly? I know it
will hide changes using the blame functionality, and would force people to
edit some PR. Is the trade-off worth it for you?
The idea would be
I am a fan of convention and think everyone should have some. Strict
enforcing of non-functionals, I'm not to big on. I see what you want to
achieve here but am reluctant not to -1 any strictness. If we do it with a
post-commit-hook (or if such a thing exists a post-merge-hook) we will
allow for co
The checkstyle rules can be imported in pretty much any IDE to help during
coding and to display the errors immediately.
To speed up the detection of checkstyle errors, we could edit the post
commit hooks to run a mvn command only for the checkstyle rules, and then
do the usual stuff.
I'm not in f
I am in favor of that. I only have a comment to add. We are already
checking code style when validating PRs. So, it is only a matter of adding
more checks to the check-style plugin that we are already using.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier
wrote:
> The checkstyle rules can
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone have experience hacking DB and converting
zone-wide primary storage to cluster-wide.
We have:
1 x NFS primary storage, zone-wide
1 x CEPH primary storage, zone-wide
1 x SOLIDFIRE orimary storage, zone-wide
1 zone, 1 pod, 1 cluster., Advanced zone, and 1 NFS regul
I wonder if it wouldn’t be best to wait on this until master is in code freeze.
At that point, it seems like we could add whatever rules we’d like and have
almost no impact on pending master PRs.
For me personally, although I haven’t opened it yet, I have a large PR I plan
to open in the coming
Hi Andrija,
I just took a look at the SolidFire logic around adding primary storage at the
zone level versus the cluster scope.
I recommend you try this in development prior to production, but it looks like
you can make the following changes for SolidFire:
• In cloud.storage_pool, enter the ap
ohw dear Mike, I am changing the log4j version, brr.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
wrote:
> I wonder if it wouldn’t be best to wait on this until master is in code
> freeze. At that point, it seems like we could add whatever rules we’d like
> and have almost no impact on p
Hi Mike,
thx for that info, that is exactly what I also see as DB differences, but
was also wondering if anyone played with it in Production :)
Will wait for some more reply hopefully !
Cheers
Andrija
On 29 September 2017 at 15:27, Tutkowski, Mike
wrote:
> Hi Andrija,
>
> I just took a look a
That sounds like another one to wait for until code freeze. :)
On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Daan Hoogland
mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
ohw dear Mike, I am changing the log4j version, brr.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>>
wrote:
Hi, Dev team
Not see much info about the next version of CloudStack.
Keen to know as we are evaluating the proper version to upgrade this year.
1. Will ACS 4.11 be the next LTS version according to road map ?
2. What's the design targets and key features to be included in 4.11?
3. Who i
11 matches
Mail list logo
