Hi Francois,
I can potentially test this tonight for you. We're deploying 4.3 to see if
it alleviates some of our issues with S3, but thats a few hours from now in
case someine wants to test it sooner.
Regards,
Tanner
On Feb 13, 2014 7:50 AM, "Francois Gaudreault"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://issu
rote:
>
>> Thanks Tanner :) Keep us posted please :)
>>
>> FG
>>
>> On 2/13/2014, 8:54 AM, Tanner Danzey wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Francois,
>>>
>>> I can potentially test this tonight for you. We're deploying 4.3 to see
>>>
t; https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
> >
> >
> >
> > Testing instructions are here:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Release+test+pr
> > ocedure
> >
> >
> >
> > Vote will
ion as far as where to start looking through code, or is there
a fix somewhere floating around already?
Much appreciated,
Tanner Danzey
Systems Engineer
Northstar Technology Group
tanner.dan...@northstar-tg.com
arkan...@gmail.com
(701) 237-9096 x7222
behavior. Just the expected result.
Thanks,
Tanner Danzey
or RBD / CLVM.
Let me know what you think, I hope I answered all your questions.
- Tanner
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20357/#review40394
-------
erying .next() and then
> > .previous()
> >
> > It seems like guessing or is there some hard restrained that makes this
> > the way to determine this is KVM.
> >
> > Is this really the place to decide on hypervisor type?
>
> Tanner Danzey wrote:
>
---
Applied on otherwise clean 4.4 branch and tested in a live testing environment
with KVM hypervisors and RBD primary storage pool that would otherwise identify
as OVM. No errors and no weird behavior. Just the expected result.
Thanks,
Tanner Danzey
with KVM hypervisors and RBD primary storage pool that would otherwise identify
as OVM. No errors and no weird behavior. Just the expected result.
Thanks,
Tanner Danzey
environment
with KVM hypervisors and RBD primary storage pool that would otherwise identify
as OVM. No errors and no weird behavior. Just the expected result.
Thanks,
Tanner Danzey
---
On April 16, 2014, 3:23 a.m., Tanner Danzey wrote:
>
> ---
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20357/
> ---
> On April 16, 2014, 4:02 a.m., Yoshikazu Nojima wrote:
> > It seems getHypervisorTypeFromFormat method is only called from
> > VolumeJoinDaoImpl#newVolumeResponse.
> > It should be fixed, but does it affect snapshot feature?
>
> Tanner Danzey wrote:
> Ye
t;IMHO any workflow that does not rely on cherry-picking has only
> >> >advantages compared to the current process.
> >> >
> >> >Git-flow has many people that like it and many people that don¹t. But,
> >> >the people that don¹t like it usually use anot
> >>> still
> > >>> does not work.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Have you tried the 4.4 templates found here:
> > http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/
> > >> systemvm/4.4/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Not yet, as of the moment I'm more curious of which of our documentet
> > > systemvm templates that needs to be changed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
>
--
*Tanner Danzey*
Systems Engineer
Northstar Technology Group
arkan...@gmail.com / tanner.dan...@northstar-tg.com
(701) 237-9096 x7122
back to Master. All the child branches should get these latest changes
> >from
> >Master.
> >
> >Please share your thoughts on this ?
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Tanner Danzey
> wrote:
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I suppo
ate branch vs bugs that can be committed to the
> *developer/*release branch directly.
>
> Thanks,
> Alena.
>
> On 7/29/14, 11:53 AM, "Tanner Danzey" wrote:
>
> >This seems like a reasonable use scenario, but is it not what the article
> >located at @ htt
ay/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess
> and is up for a vote:
>
> Can you share your opinion on the proposal?
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> Thanks,
> ~Rajani
>
>
>
>
--
17 matches
Mail list logo
