I have not had chance to test yet as in the middle of a big Government Cloud Project, but agree with Marcus around voting.
A "-1" should only be cast (in my personal opinion) if we see a serious regression or there is a major bug in a new feature. If the regression has the potential to 'break' existing deployments then it’s a -1. If the new feature has a major bug then we should either fix the new feature, or pull it from the release. Again only my personal opinions, but just wanted to chuck them out there. Regards Geoff Higginbottom D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581 geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com -----Original Message----- From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: 05 May 2015 16:23 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.5.1 Oh, I didn't see a vote from you yet. I just wanted to get my opinion out. There are some pretty critical fixes shipping in this build (clustered mgmt server is broken in 4.5.0, for example), and I think we need to be more generous with shipping fixes in small doses rather than blocking on known or existing issues. On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > sure, hence the -0 > > Op di 5 mei 2015 om 17:03 schreef Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com>: > > > This is the sort of thing that I'd personally not -1, unless we can > > prove that it's a regression. If the files were released in 4.5.0 > > and haven't been modified, I'd prefer to ship some bugfixes rather > > than trying to fix all known bugs before shipping. > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Daan Hoogland > > <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Rene, but it is a problem in the release. It sound very strange > > > that it would not have been caught in any of the 4.4 releases or > > > in 4.5.0. I am hesitant but a -1 is on the surface of my keyboard. > > > > > > Op di 5 mei 2015 om 13:03 schreef Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net>: > > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > Tested an update from 4.2.1 to 4.5.1 which failed because of 2 > > identical > > > > ALTER TABLE statements for cloud_usage in schema-421to430.sql > > > > and schema-430to440.sql > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/4.5-RC20150504T1217/setup/db > /db/schema-421to430.sql#L787 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/4.5-RC20150504T1217/setup/db > /db/schema-430to440.sql#L464 > > > > > > > > Commenting it out in schema-430to440.sql fixed it the update. > > > > Not > > really > > > > sure if this would brake anything in other conditions. > > > > > > > > It is not really a problem of 4.5.1, so not vote against it. > > > > > > > > Yours > > > > René > > > > > > > > On 04.05.2015 13:20, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > I've created a 4.5.1 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/4.5 > > > > > Commit: 0eb4eb23701f0c6fec8bd5461cd9aa9f92c9576d > > > > > > > > > > List of changes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain; > f=CHANGES.md;hb=4.5 > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/commits/4.5-RC20150504T12 > > > > > 17 > > > > > > > > > > Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the > > > > > same > > > > > location): > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.5.1/ > > > > > > > > > > PGP release keys (signed using 0EE3D884): > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > Vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > For convenience of testing, you may use the following > > > > > repositories > > and > > > > > location to download systemvm templates: > > > > > > > > > > http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/testing/ > > > > > http://packages.shapeblue.com/systemvmtemplate/4.5/ > > > > > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
