Re: PRs for 4.9 Release
hi Will, I have free hardware( mini centos 7 cluster ) , and I want to help improve the CI process . Could you write a how-to step by step document on this topic and post on http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/ ? thanks On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > I'd LOVE to see this in 4.9, a much needed feature. > > " CLOUDSTACK-9203 Implement security group move on updateVM API call #1297 > " > > > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1297 > > -- > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! > > Nux! > www.nux.ro > > - Original Message - > > From: "Will Stevens" <williamstev...@gmail.com> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2016 17:15:38 > > Subject: PRs for 4.9 Release > > > I know this is not how this usually works, but I need to crowd source > some > > info to be more effective. > > > > I am slowly getting things rolling for the 4.9 release. My CI is > chugging > > away and I have a queue of PRs to get tested, so I will be getting > through > > them as quickly as I can. I have finally gotten to where I have a > > relatively steady stream of merges going in and I am working through > final > > logistics on a whole bunch. > > > > I would like some help prioritizing PRs that we feel MUST get into 4.9. > > There are almost 200 PRs open right now so it is not realistic for me to > > expect to get them all into the 4.9 release simply due to the number of > CI > > hours needed. > > > > If you know of PRs that you think are important to get in, please reply > > with a link to the Github PR so I can get them into my active list. > > > > One more thing... > > > > If you have any extra hardware available that is not currently being used > > and you are willing to help with the CI effort, please email me and I > will > > get you setup so you can contribute to testing. I would like to try to > get > > a distributed network of CI environments working to better test the ACS > > code base, so even if you only have the hardware free for 2 weeks, we can > > make use of it. I can help you get the hardware up and running ready for > > testing in a couple hours. > > > > Thanks you for the support... > > > > Will > -- Tian ChunFeng http://cloud.domolo.com
Re: Introduction
Hi,Boris you are welcome, and expect your shares . On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:19 AM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Boris > > Welcome! > > On 3/28/16 5:21 AM, Boris Stoyanov wrote: > > Hi CloudStack, > > > > My name is Boris Stoyanov (Bobby) and today is my first day @ShapeBlue. > I’m based in Sofia, Bulgaria. I will be taking the role of Software > Engineer in Test, and as you may have guessed I’ll mostly focus on testing > CloudStack. I have about 10 years of experience in testing, which I’ve > mostly spend in doing test automation frameworks and deployment automation. > I’m new to the CloudStack business and I have a lot to learn, but I hope > I’ll get up to speed in short time. Looking forward to working with you! > > > > Best Regards, > > Bobby. > > Regards, > > > > Boris Stoyanov > > > > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com > > www.shapeblue.com > > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > > @shapeblue > > > -- Tian ChunFeng http://cloud.domolo.com
Re: [VOTE] Move 'apache/cloudstack' -> 'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'
+1 On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > +1.. > > ++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++ > Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ > ++ > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Date: Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:44 PM > To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: [VOTE] Move 'apache/cloudstack' -> 'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack' > > >We are discussing this proposal in 3 or 4 threads, so I will not try to > >recap everything. Instead I will try to give a brief overview of the > >problem and a proposal for solving it. > > > >*Problem:* > >The Apache CloudStack community needs additional github permissions in > >order to integrate CI for the purpose of maintaining code quality. The > >ASF > >does not have enough granular control via the 'apache' github organization > >to give the 'apache/cloudstack' repository the needed permissions. > > > >*Proposal:* > >Transfer ownership of the 'apache/cloudstack' mirrored repository out of > >the 'apache' github organization into the 'apache-cloudstack' github > >organization (which I have already setup and started inviting users to). > >Both members of the ACS community and the ASF board will have 'owner' > >permissions on this new organization. This will allow for permissions to > >be applied specifically to the 'apache-cloudstack' organization and not > >have to be applied to the entire 'apache' organization. > > > >By transferring ownership, all of the PRs will be copied to the new > >repository and redirects will be created on github from > >'apache/cloudstack' > >to 'apache-cloudstack/cloudstack'. > > > >The developer workflow and commit workflow will remain unchanged. The > >canonical ASF repository (git://git.apache.org/cloudstack.git) will > remain > >the source of truth and commits will be made to that repository. > > > >Please ask if anything is unclear or needs to be better defined in order > >for you to cast a vote. > > -- Tian ChunFeng http://cloud.domolo.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Github
+1 to moving to github. On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:17 PM, ilya <ilya.mailing.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to moving to github. > > On 1/3/16 3:25 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > Bringing this one discuss thread to the top of the ML to get stronger > consensus. > > > > We need it if we want to request a move to GitHub. > > > > Note that this is not about leaving the ASF, it is about using GitHub to > its full potential. > > > > The ASF board is investigating ways for a project to use Github and > still maintain strong provenance of commits to keep the high quality and > provenance standards of ASF code. > > > > If we get consensus we can request to the board to be part of the > “trial” and move to Github. > > > >> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Sebastien, This will create a github repo under the apache organisation > >>> right? one that we can not merge to. > >>> > >> > >> Yes , that’s how I created all the docs repo and the repos for ec2stack > and gstack. > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> BTW > >>>> > >>>> Anyone can ask for a new git repo which will be mirrored on github at: > >>>> > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/customer/portal/1/create/8 > >>>> > >>>> Not sure if the link will work, but it’s available through issues. > >>>> > >>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2015, at 16:28, Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Seb > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 12/19/2015 10:12 AM, sebgoa wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Late October I started thread [1] about moving our repo to GitHub, > I > >>>> would like to re-open this discussion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now that we have stabilized master and release 4.6.0, 4.6.1, 4.6.2 > and > >>>> 4.7.0 we need to think about the next steps. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To me Git and GitHub has become an essential tool to any software > >>>> development, not using it to its full potential is hurting us. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just as an example I would like to point you to [2], this a PR I > made > >>>> to Kubernetes (a container orchestrator), it literally added 14 > characters > >>>> in a json file. > >>>>>>> This was really a very minor change. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The PR automatically triggered 3 bots which created 7 labels, it > ran > >>>> end to end testss, Jenkins jobs and triggered third part builds. > >>>>>>> It was automatically merged. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am fine moving to github. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But IMHO the git hosting is not the problem, the problem is how far > do > >>>>>> we trust the current tests and how we can them improve. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Moving to github doesn't improve testing. Doing manual tests is > okay and > >>>>>> hard work, it does not speed up things. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We need fully automated unit _and_ integration tests that we trust. > I do > >>>>>> not trust in mocking and simulating infrastructure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We discovered most of the major problems running cloudstack on real > >>>>>> hardware in real world scenarios. Race conditions, unexpected VR > >>>>>> reboots, VMs not getting IPs from DHCP, etc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rating complexity of changes: easy_fix, minor_change, major_change > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Running tests according complexity: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - easy_fix: just merge it. > >>>>>> - minor_change: unit and simulator test passed > >>>>>> - major_change: the full blown integration testing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMHO we should work on solid testing and development is fun, > merging a > >>>>>> click and releasing a breath. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just my 2 cents. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fully agree > >>>>> > >>>>> I do think moving to github would allow us to run tests on real > systems > >>>> more easily. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> René > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daan > >> > > > -- Tian ChunFeng http://cloud.domolo.com
Re:[DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution
+1 some trivial cases: When user upload a template , add option or tags to identify the template is SystemVm template . Allow user have their own custom SystemVm Service Offering , in which has an option for user assign/choice systemvm template . -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: John Kinsellaj...@stratosec.co; Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 04:44 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: [DISCUSS] we need a better SSVM solution Every time there’s an issue (security or otherwise) with the system VM ISOs, it’s a relative pain to fix. They’re sort of a closed system, people know little (relative to other ACS parts, IMHO) about their innards, and updating them is more difficult than it should be. I’d love to see a Better Way. I think these things could be dynamically built, with the option to have them connect to a configuration management (CM) system such as Puppet, Chef, Salt-Stack or whatever else floats people’s boat. One possible use case: * User installs new ACS system. * User logs into mgmt server, goes to Templates area, clicks button to fetch default SSVM image. UI allows providing alternative URL, other options as needed. * (time passes) * Security issue is announced. User goes back into Templates area, selects SSVM template, clicks “Download updated template” and it does. Under infrastructure/system VMs and infrastrucutre/virtual routers, there’s buttons to update one or more running instances to use the new template Another possible use case: * User installs new ACS system * User uploads SSVM template that has CM agent configured to talk to their CM server (I’ve been wanting to lab this for a while now) * As ACS creates system VMs, they phone home to CM server, it provides them with instructions to install various packages and config as needed to be domr/console proxy/whatever. We provide basic “recipes” for CM systems for people to use and grow from. * Security issue is announced. User updates recipe in CM system, a few minutes later the SSVMs are up-to-date. Modification on that use case: We ship the SSVM with puppet/chef/blah installed, part of the SSVM “patch” process configures appropriate CM system. What might make the second use case easier would be to have some hooks in ACS that when a system is created/destroyed/modified, it informs 3rd party via API. (Obviously API calls for all of the above to allow process without touching the UI) Thoughts? John
Re: CloudPlatform 4.5 released?
yes, I find the release news from citrix official blog . http://blogs.citrix.com/2015/01/13/citrix-cloudplatform-4-5-release-highlights/ -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Mike Tutkowskimike.tutkow...@solidfire.com; Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2015 07:33 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: CloudPlatform 4.5 released? I don't think they put out a release for every CloudStack release. That they put out 4.5 before Apache did is surprising, though. On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Ian Duffy i...@ianduffy.ie wrote: That's an interesting one... Did they skip 4.4 I'm seeing no release notes on there site? On 13 Jan 2015 23:15, Nux! n...@li.nux.ro wrote: Hi, I am slightly confused. I thought Cloudstack was Citrix' Fedora, not the other way around. Should we care at all what Citrix does? Seems like they launched a 4.5 ignoring the benefit of squishing bugs we may possibly uncover during RC period. Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play*™*
for non-committer member , how could we contribute to cwiki pages?
Hi all, I want to share some of my configuration experience about cygwin on windows , however I am not editor to modify below link page : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Setting+up+a+CloudStack+dev+environment+on+Windows for non-committer member , how could we contribute to cwiki pages? BTW, I am already a registered user , my profile address is : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/~chunfeng -- Regards, ChunFeng
Why Issues tab disappeared at CloudStack's github page ?
Hi all, When you visit to page : https://github.com/apache/cloudstack , you will notice that the Issues tab missed , which should just under Code tab on the right side of the page . Why Issues tab disappeared at CloudStack's github page ? -- Regards, ChunFeng
Is issue status can only change by owner on jira system ?
hi,all https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-519 I recheck the status which 519 mentioned . The issue is not cloudstack bug . My question is : Is the issue status can only change/close by owner on jira system ? -- Regards, ChunFeng
Re: Cloudstack repos
Hi Rohit, For end user , even for developers , two repos may raise some mix-up. Could you please modify the README.md file in ShapeBlue's repo by add some statements for explaination ? -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Rohit Yadavrohit.ya...@shapeblue.com; Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 07:05 PM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: Cloudstack repos Hi Vadim, The official repository is at https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/cloudstack.git A mirror is available on Github which is more easy to work with, to get started I would recommend you fork the Github repository, work on it and pull/rebase using the above official repository, and send us Github Pull Requests for any code contributions: github.com/apache/cloudstack Our (ShapeBlue's) CloudStack repo on github is public for transparency purposes and to host release notes and tags of our patches. We think of our repo as a backup of CloudStack repository (that syncs faster than the github mirror using a cronjob) and we also note in its description that they should be considered as our backup only. On Monday 01 December 2014 03:42 PM, Vadim Kimlaychuk wrote: Hello Dev-s I am looking closer to the CS development process and if possible wish to contribute. I have found there are at least 2 repos for CS. One, I suppose, is official : git://git.apache.org/cloudstack.git another one is https://github.com/shapeblue/cloudstack.git Where does development take place? Are these 2 repos in sync with each other? Are there more repos where developers do their work? What is the purpose to have more of them ? Thanks for expaination, Vadim Kimlaychuk -- Regards, Rohit Yadav Software Architect, ShapeBlue M. +41 779015219 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design Buildhttp://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build// CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment frameworkhttp://shapeblue.com/csforge/ CloudStack Consultinghttp://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/ CloudStack Software Engineeringhttp://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/ CloudStack Infrastructure Supporthttp://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/ CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courseshttp://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.
Re: Is issue status can only change by owner on jira system ?
Hi Daan, Yes, I need it . Can you authorise my jira account to access issues status ? my user name is : chunfeng -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Daan Hooglanddaan.hoogl...@gmail.com; Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 07:26 PM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: Is issue status can only change by owner on jira system ? ChunFeng, You can close issues once your account has access in jira. You need it? On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:21 AM, ChunFeng chunf...@domolo.com wrote: hi,all https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-519 I recheck the status which 519 mentioned . The issue is not cloudstack bug . My question is : Is the issue status can only change/close by owner on jira system ? -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Daan
Re:CloudStack Quality Process
Hi Steve, I am now focus on test automation , and I willing to be one of this team. -- Regards, ChunFeng @accesine -- Original -- From: Steve Wilsonsteve.wil...@citrix.com; Date: Tue, Dec 2, 2014 03:12 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: CloudStack Quality Process Hi Everyone, It was great to get to see a number of you at the recent CCC in Budapest. While I was there, I got to meet face to face with individuals working for several companies that have a real stake in the commercial success of the CloudStack project. After joining Citrix (and becoming involved in CloudStack) about a year ago, I’ve come to believe that we need to do more to mature our quality practices around this codebase. We all like to say #cloudstackworks (and it’s true), but this is a massive codebase that’s used in the most demanding situations. We have large telecommunications companies and enterprises who are betting their businesses on this software. It has to be great! There has been quite a bit of discussion on the mailing list in recent months about how we improve in this area. There is plenty of passion, but we haven’t made enough concrete progress as a community. In my discussions with key contributors as CCC, there was general agreement that the DEV list isn’t a good forum for hashing out these kinds of things. Email is too low-bandwidth and too impersonal. At CCC, I discussed with several people the idea that we commission a small sub team to go hash out a proposal for how we handle the following topics within the ACS community (which can then be brought back to the larger community for ratification): * Continuous integration and test automation * Gating of commits * Overall commit workflow We are looking for volunteers to commit to being part of this team. This would imply a serious commitment. We don’t want hangers on or observers. This will entail real work and late night meetings. We’re looking for people who are serious contributors to the codebase. From Citrix, David Nalley and Animesh Chaturvedi have booth told me they’re willing to commit to this project. They’ve both managed ACS releases and have a really good view into the current process — and I know both are passionate about improving our process. From my CCC discussions, I believe there are individuals from Schuberg Philis, Shape Blue and Cloud Ops who are willing to commit to this process. If you are willing to be part of this team to drive forward our community, please reply here. Thanks, -Steve Steve Wilson VP Product Unit Manager Cloud Software Citrix @virtualsteve
Review Request 28535: core project can not pass junit test on mac platform .
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/ --- Review request for cloudstack. Repository: cloudstack-git Description --- run test on core failed : Change firewall rule set from HashSet to TreeSet because HashSet elements are not ordered , which will cause test failed when elements toArray are not same between windows and mac . Diffs - core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/routing/SetFirewallRulesCommand.java be85887 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/diff/ Testing --- after ensure the firewall rule set in TreeSet , toArray will the same order accross windows and mac platform, and passed test. Thanks, tian chunfeng
Re: Review Request 28535: core project can not pass junit test on mac platform .
On Nov. 29, 2014, 11:32 p.m., Rohit Yadav wrote: core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/routing/SetFirewallRulesCommand.java, line 50 https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/diff/1/?file=778385#file778385line50 If you want insertion ordered iteration or array (toArrary output) why not use LinkedHashSet? Even if TreeSet will return sorted/ordered traversal or array, it will add log(n) complexity to already O(n) loop. Should we use that and fix any tests accordingly? Can you also share the test and log which broke for you? Rohit Yadav: Actually , LinkedHashSet is my first choice too , but can not pass the junit test . In method generateFwRules() , the toAdd Set only used generate toArray result which is expected sequenced as input in test code. I can pass test on windows with HashSet but failed on Mac OSX. failed test log (HashSet): - Results : Failed tests: testFirewallRulesCommand(com.cloud.agent.resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResourceTest): expected:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[reverted:0:0:0:,64.10.10.10:TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24]:, but was:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:reverted:0:0:0]:, testAggregationCommands(com.cloud.agent.resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResourceTest): expected:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[reverted:0:0:0:,64.10.10.10:TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24]:,(..) Tests run: 139, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0 end - tian --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/#review63285 --- On Nov. 29, 2014, 5:22 p.m., tian chunfeng wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/ --- (Updated Nov. 29, 2014, 5:22 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack. Repository: cloudstack-git Description --- run test on core failed : Change firewall rule set from HashSet to TreeSet because HashSet elements are not ordered , which will cause test failed when elements toArray are not same between windows and mac . Diffs - core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/routing/SetFirewallRulesCommand.java be85887 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/diff/ Testing --- after ensure the firewall rule set in TreeSet , toArray will the same order accross windows and mac platform, and passed test. Thanks, tian chunfeng
Re: Review Request 28535: core project can not pass junit test on mac platform .
On Nov. 29, 2014, 11:32 p.m., Rohit Yadav wrote: core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/routing/SetFirewallRulesCommand.java, line 50 https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/diff/1/?file=778385#file778385line50 If you want insertion ordered iteration or array (toArrary output) why not use LinkedHashSet? Even if TreeSet will return sorted/ordered traversal or array, it will add log(n) complexity to already O(n) loop. Should we use that and fix any tests accordingly? Can you also share the test and log which broke for you? ChunFeng Tian wrote: Rohit Yadav: Actually , LinkedHashSet is my first choice too , but can not pass the junit test . In method generateFwRules() , the toAdd Set only used generate toArray result which is expected sequenced as input in test code. I can pass test on windows with HashSet but failed on Mac OSX. failed test log (HashSet): - Results : Failed tests: testFirewallRulesCommand(com.cloud.agent.resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResourceTest): expected:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[reverted:0:0:0:,64.10.10.10:TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24]:, but was:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:reverted:0:0:0]:, testAggregationCommands(com.cloud.agent.resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResourceTest): expected:...1.2/24:,64.10.10.10:[reverted:0:0:0:,64.10.10.10:TCP:22:80:10.10.1.1/24-10.10.1.2/24]:,(..) Tests run: 139, Failures: 2, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0 end Rohit Yadav wrote: Hi, I played the patch using LinkedHashSet, it builds fine and the tests passes for me on OSX using JDK 1.7. In fact the tests have been passing for most of us in OSX, since this test has been in core module for several months. Are you using JDK 7? If you're using JDK 8, some tests and build failures may happen. Rohit Yadav, You get me out , I check my default osx java version is : java version 1.8.0_05 . When I view the pom.xml under the dir of cloudstack , it required java 1.7 cs.jdk.version1.7/cs.jdk.version but , it seemed that the above line can not work . I will close this review request , Thanks again . ChunFeng - ChunFeng --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/#review63285 --- On Nov. 29, 2014, 5:22 p.m., ChunFeng Tian wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/ --- (Updated Nov. 29, 2014, 5:22 p.m.) Review request for cloudstack. Repository: cloudstack-git Description --- run test on core failed : Change firewall rule set from HashSet to TreeSet because HashSet elements are not ordered , which will cause test failed when elements toArray are not same between windows and mac . Diffs - core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/routing/SetFirewallRulesCommand.java be85887 Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/28535/diff/ Testing --- after ensure the firewall rule set in TreeSet , toArray will the same order accross windows and mac platform, and passed test. Thanks, ChunFeng Tian
Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases
hi, LTS means Long Term Support , for ubuntu means 5 years support for both desktop and server distributions. If we adopt to release cloudstack's LTS version , how many years should we support ? 5 years ? of course can not accept ! even 3 years may be too long to old for support as a IAAS management software . 2 or 1 years ? this should not call LTS version . Second ,the time span for ubuntu release next new LTS version is every 2 years . Then , consider the first question , what kind of years interval should we take? Third, even if the above two issues is false positive , how should we name the LTS release version's ? such as: CloudStack-LTS-4.x-201401 , CloudStack-LTS-4.X-201402 etc , this may cause a more confuse to end-users to make a right choice . IMO , if a software could automatically upgrade to newer version by just one or fews clickes , which kind software is suitable for LTS release mechanism , otherwise the cost for end-user to upgrade from the older one to newer which will be same as user to choice next release version, ie reinstall . as Hugo, sebgoa and Andrija said: we need a WAY to focus here on FIXING, POLISHING , then LTS becomes less important and I’m not in favor of supporting LTS releases as a community. -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: sebgoarun...@gmail.com; Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2014 05:14 PM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Andrija Panic andrija.pa...@gmail.com wrote: my 2 cents again: Whether we have this LTS release or not - is not just about having release - we need a WAY to focus here on FIXING, POLISHING product and more important to stimulate/make developers interested in doing so. If this was company owned product, it would be very easy to set goals, and then speak to devs, fix this, fix that. Since this is ofcourse comunity based product - we need some way of focusing on fixing the stuff, and really stop adding features (maybe not completely quit adding features, but...) One important note, and possible scenario - just by having LTS release, but still having majority of developer working on non-LTS release (ading new features) is a big probability, and then we are back to zero with our progress, so I guess this is also an option/problem that we need to consider. I have a very nice experience with CloudStack so far (in general, except being frustrated by some childish problems) - if this was all polished, and documentation complete - I'm 100% sure there will be no better cloud project on the market any time soon, and I really mean it ! It is my wish (and I hope of others) to see CloudStack migrate from #CloudstackWorks to #CloudStackRocks for the next CCC and I think this is VERY much possible. Thanks for this Andrija, it made my morning :) I am of the opinion that if/when we improve our committing habits, we will have high confidence that every bug fixed in a release branch will also be fixed in the next release. Little process changing that we are making, like using github PR, merging back to master etc, will help us get into somewhat of a rolling release. If we take great care with our upgrade paths and avoid regressions then LTS becomes less important. We have had some challenges with 4.4 and the fact that 4.3 is solid makes it natural to want to keep 4.3 alive and patched. I don't use cloudstack in production so I will differ to those who do on this. What we do need is higher involvement of users in testing and voting on the releases early. -Sebastien On 26 November 2014 at 22:40, Pierre-Luc Dion pdion...@apache.org wrote: I'm not really in favor of LTS support, it's a good idea, but not sure it can be backed by the community?[open question here ;)]. I don't think it fit in our current model for few reasons: - Upgrade path might become impossible as patches become part of multiple versions. We could end up with problem at database schema with the current db upgrade model. - Enforcing user to stay on a legacy ACS release disallow usage of future hypervisor version, Guest OSes and new hardware used by hypervisors. As hypervisors will become out of date, they won't be able to support new Guest OSes and new hardware. - I think the initiative would dilute the effort on the upgrade path and making sure the upgrade path is easy and always work. Since 4.3.1 as been released after 4.4.0, do we know if a 4.3.1 can be upgrade to 4.4.1 or event 4.5? - Contribution to ACS and bugfixing become nightmare as bugfix might end up in 4 branches (4.3, 4.4, 4.5, master,...) Why not as community (let's face it, not very a big one) we all focus on the next 4.5 version, make sure it's properly tested, make sure upgrade just work and have ACS 4 as the LTS ? ;-) I know a production system is not likely to run
Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases
Thanks to Rohit Andrei shares focus on this topic . I am +1 on we should reshape the rhythm of new release . btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel Since the 2004 release of the 2.6 kernel, Linux no longer uses this system, and has a much shorter release cycle. In 2004, after version 2.6.0 was released, the kernel developers held several discussions regarding the release and version scheme[200][201] and ultimately Linus Torvalds and others decided that a much shorter time-based release cycle would be beneficial. The even-odd system of alternation between stable and unstable was gone. Instead, development pre-releases are titled release candidates, which is indicated by appending the suffix '-rc' to the kernel version, followed by an ordinal number. -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Andrei Mikhailovskyand...@arhont.com; Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2014 08:51 PM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases ChunFeng, I think as long as there is a change to the current efforts it will improve the stability of the product. At the moment, it is clearly not working very well for the end users, otherwise, we would not be discussing this topic. As to answer your previous concerns, I agree, having a 5 year support is not an option for CloudStack, especially taking into considering the dynamic development and the current maturity of the product. It has to be more frequent. Perhaps the LTS equivalent version should be released with every two/three releases of the non-LTS release. Two/three release cycles should be enough time to community test the new features and correct the bugs for the stable release. IMHO the naming concept is less important as long as the documentation and release notes make a distinction. Having fancy letters at the end of the product name is a marketing/PR/sales job ). Some companies use LTS, others GA, others simply use odd/even version numbering to distinguish between the production and testing releases. One issue that I foresee with the LTS / non-LTS release cycles is that the non-LTS releases might have a smaller userbase as a lot of users want to have a production ready system and they perhaps be less likely to install and test the non-LTS release. Andrei - Original Message - From: ChunFeng chunf...@domolo.com To: dev dev@cloudstack.apache.org Sent: Thursday, 27 November, 2014 10:36:46 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases hi, LTS means Long Term Support , for ubuntu means 5 years support for both desktop and server distributions. If we adopt to release cloudstack's LTS version , how many years should we support ? 5 years ? of course can not accept ! even 3 years may be too long to old for support as a IAAS management software . 2 or 1 years ? this should not call LTS version . Second ,the time span for ubuntu release next new LTS version is every 2 years . Then , consider the first question , what kind of years interval should we take? Third, even if the above two issues is false positive , how should we name the LTS release version's ? such as: CloudStack-LTS-4.x-201401 , CloudStack-LTS-4.X-201402 etc , this may cause a more confuse to end-users to make a right choice . IMO , if a software could automatically upgrade to newer version by just one or fews clickes , which kind software is suitable for LTS release mechanism , otherwise the cost for end-user to upgrade from the older one to newer which will be same as user to choice next release version, ie reinstall . as Hugo, sebgoa and Andrija said: we need a WAY to focus here on FIXING, POLISHING , then LTS becomes less important and I’m not in favor of supporting LTS releases as a community. -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: sebgoarun...@gmail.com; Date: Thu, Nov 27, 2014 05:14 PM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] LTS Releases On Nov 27, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Andrija Panic andrija.pa...@gmail.com wrote: my 2 cents again: Whether we have this LTS release or not - is not just about having release - we need a WAY to focus here on FIXING, POLISHING product and more important to stimulate/make developers interested in doing so. If this was company owned product, it would be very easy to set goals, and then speak to devs, fix this, fix that. Since this is ofcourse comunity based product - we need some way of focusing on fixing the stuff, and really stop adding features (maybe not completely quit adding features, but...) One important note, and possible scenario - just by having LTS release, but still having majority of developer working on non-LTS release (ading new features) is a big probability, and then we are back to zero with our progress, so I guess this is also an option/problem that we need
How to skip some child projects maven test intentionally ?
How to skip some child projects maven test intentionally ? I am now building my coding development environment , of course , I do not need some sub projects , such as : Network Brocade VCS, Midokura Midonet etc . When I run command : mvn install -P developer,systemvm , maven list all sub child projects of cloudstack , especially for Plugin projects , I want just SKIP maven test them for time cost reason. Can I just skip those maven test by assign some command after : mvn install -P developer,systemvm ( such as -skip:midonet ) ? -- Regards, ChunFeng
Re: Moving ec2stack and gstack to the cloudstack repos.
hi all, I need help for a clean picture about the umbrella projects of cloudstack: such as : 1. the umbrella project links in cloudstack.org homepage 2. the source code structure and relations with cloudstack source code in git repos. 3. the rules for us to agree one as umbrella projects BTW, is there any others umbrella proejcts as cloudmonkey ? -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Sebastien Goasguenrun...@gmail.com; Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 06:29 AM To: devdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: Re: Moving ec2stack and gstack to the cloudstack repos. On Nov 24, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com wrote: I do see a bug fix this year from Likitha and the fact that Hugo etc are making fixes is positive as well. But, the end state we desire is (a) good AWSAPI implementation with automated tests, not (b) 2 AWSAPI implementations with no tests! time for bed here, but to keep the conversation going, couple things: Hugo is fixing coverity issues kind of automatically, I don't think it represents a need. One fix from Likitha and one applied patch from me in a year is really slim. We don't test the current awsapi during the release process or upgrade, so I actually have no clue if it's working with 4.3 and 4.4. Right now I don't see tests for the current awsapi, at least not on jenkins.buildacloud.org. Current awsapi also includes S3 stuff which I think we can all agree is confusing and unused since it's really an interface to an NFS store and not a distributed object store. So the choice for me is between: -current awsapi, not clearly maintained, without tests and which state in the release is unknown and -a new implementation 6 months old, smaller code base, up to date with AWS version number, tested manually with boto, eutester and awscli and with 99% unit test coverage. — Chiradeep From: Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.commailto:run...@gmail.com Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 1:36 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Moving ec2stack and gstack to the cloudstack repos. On Nov 24, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.commailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com wrote: “..nobody in the community (aside from you, Likitha and Prachi) have actually touched that code in the last two years. So if we don't maintain that code.. That’s false equivalence. Clearly it has been maintained since there are bug fixes. I don't know…I look at: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/tree/master/awsapi I see Hugo has fixed some coverity issues I applied a review 8 months ago the rest is older. but maybe I am not looking at this the right way. there is one review still pending: https://reviews.apache.org/r/21776/ So from looking at it this way it does not look actively maintained. No ? But we’re looking to make things better. I am not sure HOW bringing in another compatibility layer brings benefits, UNLESS WE propose to commit time to provide a suite of integration tests (say, via eutester) Do we have a suite of integration tests for awsapi that is running right now ? where ? I did play with eutester and actually patched it to work with cloudstack when I worked on ec2stack: http://sebgoa.blogspot.de/2014/06/eutester-interesting-tool-based-on-boto.html -sebastien Thanks — Chiradeep From: sebgoa run...@gmail.commailto:run...@gmail.commailto:run...@gmail.com Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org Date: Monday, November 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.orgmailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Moving ec2stack and gstack to the cloudstack repos. On Nov 24, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Chiradeep Vittal chiradeep.vit...@citrix.commailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.commailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com wrote: Seems legit, but from (bitter) experience, there is no point in a compatible API layer unless somebody puts in the elbow grease to test the compatibility. Since the actual EC2 API as implemented by AWS changes frequently and has undocumented semantics and behavior that varies from the WSDL, this takes some work. So, my question would be how would this benefit the community (unless someone has tested out the compatibility with various tools such as boto, ec2-* CLI). I think the main issue is the on-going maintenance of such an interface. That's also one of the main
Re:RE: VMs are automatically powered off.
hi,Karthik After review your attached log , almost 1K size , I found that the related log message about VM instance i-2-6 is still missed. You were installing windows 7 to i-2-6 VM instance , you know , it's a too long waiting time , but the console log roll-over so quickly . May be you have to record your log again. You can use this tool , paste raw log into it for a concise log format. http://cloud.domolo.com/cloudstack_log.html -- Regards, ChunFeng -- Original -- From: Karthikeyan Ravichandrankarthikeyan.ravichand...@citrix.com; Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 05:45 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.orgdev@cloudstack.apache.org; Subject: RE: VMs are automatically powered off. ManagementServer.log is available here: https://citrix.sharefile.com/d/sa11ec2bc9aa45b48 Regards, Karthik. From: Karthikeyan Ravichandran [mailto:karthikeyan.ravichand...@citrix.com] Sent: 26 April 2013 15:01 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: VMs are automatically powered off. Hi, I’m using CloudStack build #244- when I try to create VM, the VM is getting powered off automatically in the middle of installation. I was creating Win-7 VM Cent OS VM from a ISO registered in CloudStack Mgmt Svr, and the issue happens in both the OS. Attaching the ManagementServer.log file as well for your reference. Regards, Karthik.
