Marcus:
Is this is a -1?
I don't have any legal concerns, and the release builds and tests for
me (though I haven't tried VPC). I am somewhat concerned about what
appears to be drifting away from adhering to semver. (features appear
to have made it into the 4.2.1 release that weren't in 4.2.0) and I am
also concerned about sys vm update fatigue, especially given the
problems we had in 4.2.0 around sysvm updates.
--David
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I understand that 4.2.0 had a lot of post-release work needed.
>
> We are unable to create VPNs. This is reported second hand from one
> of my admins. He seems to think that it was caused by the following,
> which added a for loop inside a for loop. The error is:
> 'com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLIntegrityConstraintViolationException:
> Duplicate entry '146-Lb' for key 'vpc_id'
>
> We did the following to fix it, something should be added to the sql upgrade.
> mysql -D cloud -t -e 'alter table vpc_service_map drop key vpc_id, add
> unique key vpc_id (vpc_id,service,provider)'
>
>
> commit 9050cfad3da673370d6ad1ed7570e31314069996
>
> CLOUDSTACK-4704: 41-42 db upgrade - populate vpc_service_map table
> with the services/providers supported by VPC
>
>
> @Override
> @DB
> - public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String,
> String> serviceProviderMap) {
> + public void persistVpcServiceProviders(long vpcId, Map<String,
> List<String>> serviceProviderMap) {
> Transaction txn = Transaction.currentTxn();
> txn.start();
> for (String service : serviceProviderMap.keySet()) {
> - VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId,
> Network.Service.getService(service),
> Network.Provider.getProvider(serviceProviderMap.get(service)));
> - _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap);
> + for (String provider : serviceProviderMap.get(service)) {
> + VpcServiceMapVO serviceMap = new
> VpcServiceMapVO(vpcId, Network.Service.getService(service),
> Network.Provider.getProvider(provider));
> + _vpcSvcMap.persist(serviceMap);
> + }
> }
> txn.commit();
> }
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> +1 binding (I had not been clear on this in this thread it seems)
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> Marcus,
>>>
>>> Just summarising your concerns so that they can be followed upon:
>>> 1. Due to a VR script change a restart of VR is required. This should be
>>> noted down in upgrade instructions in RN. (Radhika to note)
>>> 2. For a maintenance release we should limit the scope to only blockers. I
>>> guess what is done is done probably for better as the main release had so
>>> many new features that a whole lot fixes were expected in the maintenance
>>> release. But again for further maintenance releases scope should be
>>> restricted to important fixes.
>>>
>>> Any other thing that has been missed ?
>>>
>>> -abhi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/11/13 12:06 am, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm unable to deploy virtual machines after upgrading an existing
>>>>4.2.0 to this release.
>>>>
>>>>It looks like the file savepassword.sh was added at the end of October
>>>>as a virtual router script. This would likely mean that people
>>>>upgrading to 4.2.1 will need to upgrade/redeploy their routers. I can
>>>>verify that deploy works if I reboot the router.
>>>>
>>>>Looking over the current state of 4.2, I'm actually pretty surprised
>>>>at how much has changed. I'm seeing lots of whitespace fixes, changes
>>>>to interfaces, etc. My impression was that we'd only commit fixes for
>>>>blocker bugs once a release has gone production, only touching it if
>>>>we had to. This went pretty well with 4.1, I thought, but everything
>>>>was going through the RM that round.
>>>>
>>>>2013-11-13 11:25:24,917 DEBUG
>>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Executing:
>>>>/usr/share/cloudstack-common/scripts/network/domr/router_proxy.sh
>>>>savepassword.sh 169.254.1.163 -v 10.2.4.116 -p fnirq_cnffjbeq
>>>>
>>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,000 DEBUG
>>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Exit value is 127
>>>>
>>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,001 DEBUG
>>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) bash: /opt/cloud/bin/savepassword.sh: No
>>>>such file or directory
>>>>
>>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,002 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 21-289734823: { Ans: , MgmtId:
>>>>90520732090445, via: 21, Ver: v1, Flags: 110,
>>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details":"Unable to
>>>>save password to
>>>>DomR.","wait":0}},{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details":
>>>>"Stopped
>>>>by previous failure","wait":0}}] }
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote is to approve the current RC build for 4.2.1 maintenance
>>>>>>release.
>>>>>> For this particular release various upgrade paths have been tested
>>>>>>apart from regression tests and BVTs.
>>>>>> Around 175 bugs have been fixed some new features added (see CHANGES).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following are the particulars for this release:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=re
>>>>>>fs/heads/4.2
>>>>>> commit: 0b9eadaf14513f5c72de672963b0e2f12ee7206f
>>>>>>
>>>>>> List of changes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=
>>>>>>CHANGES;hb=4.2.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source release revision 3492 (checksums and signatures are available
>>>>>>at the same location):
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 11/15 End of day PST).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
>>>>>>indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> I only performed very rudimentary functional testing, but the
>>>>> artifact's look legit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for doing this Abhi!
>>>
