Re: Git Push Summary

[David Nalley]

What is this branch for?
On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:

> Updated Branches:
>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Chiradeep Vittal]

David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
testing since atm the master looks stable.

On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:

>What is this branch for?
>On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Updated Branches:
>>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
>>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Chip Childers]

Min, Jessica, Alena,

What's going on in this branch?

The commits are curious.  Are these fixes going into master?

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:37:52PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
> testing since atm the master looks stable.
> 
> On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:
> 
> >What is this branch for?
> >On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
> >
> >> Updated Branches:
> >>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
> >>
> 
> 

Re: Git Push Summary

[Alena Prokharchyk]

Chip, all my fixes that I've put to this branch, were originally committed
to master. I cherry-picked them to the master-6-17-stable.


commit 5d0a1cee13fb3006f3e35cd221e553587ea20ce2
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 16:10:12 2013 -0700

CLOUDSTACK-2883: create default network offering with internal lb
support (if doesn't exist already)

commit 952fa2464da9f10b63fbba869922ee735c231c42
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:50:22 2013 -0700

LOUDSTACK-2914: handle situation when serviceProvider map is empty

commit fc16e29f992d81156a4e08a77da215f8276f4efe
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:09:52 2013 -0700

CLOUDSTACK-2914: default lb scheme to Public when the service LB is
enabled, and scheme is not specified explicitly



-Alena.


On 6/18/13 11:59 AM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:

>Min, Jessica, Alena,
>
>What's going on in this branch?
>
>The commits are curious.  Are these fixes going into master?
>
>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:37:52PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
>> testing since atm the master looks stable.
>> 
>> On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:
>> 
>> >What is this branch for?
>> >On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Updated Branches:
>> >>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
>> >>
>> 
>> 
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Chip Childers]

Gotcha!

So are you folks using this branch to do some testing now?  Sounds like
a great idea to start testing before the last big merges come in.

-chip

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:32:10PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> Chip, all my fixes that I've put to this branch, were originally committed
> to master. I cherry-picked them to the master-6-17-stable.
> 
> 
> commit 5d0a1cee13fb3006f3e35cd221e553587ea20ce2
> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
> Date:   Mon Jun 17 16:10:12 2013 -0700
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-2883: create default network offering with internal lb
> support (if doesn't exist already)
> 
> commit 952fa2464da9f10b63fbba869922ee735c231c42
> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
> Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:50:22 2013 -0700
> 
> LOUDSTACK-2914: handle situation when serviceProvider map is empty
> 
> commit fc16e29f992d81156a4e08a77da215f8276f4efe
> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
> Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:09:52 2013 -0700
> 
> CLOUDSTACK-2914: default lb scheme to Public when the service LB is
> enabled, and scheme is not specified explicitly
> 
> 
> 
> -Alena.
> 
> 
> On 6/18/13 11:59 AM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:
> 
> >Min, Jessica, Alena,
> >
> >What's going on in this branch?
> >
> >The commits are curious.  Are these fixes going into master?
> >
> >On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:37:52PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
> >> testing since atm the master looks stable.
> >> 
> >> On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >What is this branch for?
> >> >On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Updated Branches:
> >> >>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
> >> >>
> >> 
> >> 
> >
> 
> 
> 

Re: Git Push Summary

[Min Chen]

Yes, my commit is also pushed master.

Thanks
-min

On 6/18/13 12:34 PM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:

>Gotcha!
>
>So are you folks using this branch to do some testing now?  Sounds like
>a great idea to start testing before the last big merges come in.
>
>-chip
>
>On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 07:32:10PM +, Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
>> Chip, all my fixes that I've put to this branch, were originally
>>committed
>> to master. I cherry-picked them to the master-6-17-stable.
>> 
>> 
>> commit 5d0a1cee13fb3006f3e35cd221e553587ea20ce2
>> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
>> Date:   Mon Jun 17 16:10:12 2013 -0700
>> 
>> CLOUDSTACK-2883: create default network offering with internal lb
>> support (if doesn't exist already)
>> 
>> commit 952fa2464da9f10b63fbba869922ee735c231c42
>> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
>> Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:50:22 2013 -0700
>> 
>> LOUDSTACK-2914: handle situation when serviceProvider map is empty
>> 
>> commit fc16e29f992d81156a4e08a77da215f8276f4efe
>> Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
>> Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:09:52 2013 -0700
>> 
>> CLOUDSTACK-2914: default lb scheme to Public when the service LB is
>> enabled, and scheme is not specified explicitly
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Alena.
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/18/13 11:59 AM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:
>> 
>> >Min, Jessica, Alena,
>> >
>> >What's going on in this branch?
>> >
>> >The commits are curious.  Are these fixes going into master?
>> >
>> >On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:37:52PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> >> David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
>> >> testing since atm the master looks stable.
>> >> 
>> >> On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >What is this branch for?
>> >> >On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Updated Branches:
>> >> >>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
>> >> >>
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> 

RE: Git Push Summary

[Jessica Wang]

Chip,

> all my fixes that I've put to this branch, were originally committed to 
> master.
Me, too.

Jessica

-Original Message-
From: Alena Prokharchyk 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:32 PM
To: Chip Childers; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Jessica Wang; Min Chen
Subject: Re: Git Push Summary

Chip, all my fixes that I've put to this branch, were originally committed
to master. I cherry-picked them to the master-6-17-stable.


commit 5d0a1cee13fb3006f3e35cd221e553587ea20ce2
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 16:10:12 2013 -0700

CLOUDSTACK-2883: create default network offering with internal lb
support (if doesn't exist already)

commit 952fa2464da9f10b63fbba869922ee735c231c42
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:50:22 2013 -0700

LOUDSTACK-2914: handle situation when serviceProvider map is empty

commit fc16e29f992d81156a4e08a77da215f8276f4efe
Author: Alena Prokharchyk 
Date:   Mon Jun 17 10:09:52 2013 -0700

CLOUDSTACK-2914: default lb scheme to Public when the service LB is
enabled, and scheme is not specified explicitly



-Alena.


On 6/18/13 11:59 AM, "Chip Childers"  wrote:

>Min, Jessica, Alena,
>
>What's going on in this branch?
>
>The commits are curious.  Are these fixes going into master?
>
>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 07:37:52PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> David, this is a temporary scratch branch to perform some integration
>> testing since atm the master looks stable.
>> 
>> On 6/17/13 11:57 AM, "David Nalley"  wrote:
>> 
>> >What is this branch for?
>> >On Jun 17, 2013 1:27 PM,  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Updated Branches:
>> >>   refs/heads/master-6-17-stable [created] fc16e29f9
>> >>
>> 
>> 
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Pranav Saxena]

Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the commits you
make your here . Once the code for handling nested query API calls are
ready , you can merge it into master.

@Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the process of
re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle the nested query
API calls . You could review it once as well when he sends out a request
for merge . It should not be a big change though !

Thanks,
Pranav


On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:

> Updated Branches:
>   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Pranav Saxena]

Hey Isaac ,

I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code changes
look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for the following
cases -
1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure

 - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API calls
getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your code changes)
 - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of say 2-3
seconds between two successive notifications.

One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that you
would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when you merge
your branch with master. Since your code modifications/additions have been
done on the already existing code , I am pretty sure you would have to take
care of these conflicts. Since the changes aren't that huge, you could
manually copy them to the master branch or replace the entire system.js
file in your branch in the master assuming you forked your branch out of
master and there haven't been other changes in system.js file . First
option is a safer approach though !!

Thanks,
Pranav


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang  wrote:

> Hi Pranav:
>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Regards
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Pranav Saxena 
> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, jessica.w...@citrix.com,
> sonny.ch...@citrix.com
> Cc: comm...@cloudstack.apache.org
>
>
> Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the commits you
> make your here . Once the code for handling nested query API calls are
> ready , you can merge it into master.
>
> @Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the process of
> re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle the nested query
> API calls . You could review it once as well when he sends out a request
> for merge . It should not be a big change though !
>
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:
>
> > Updated Branches:
> >   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
> >
>
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Isaac Chiang]

Hi Pranav,
I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next few
days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like to
copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the branch.
Thanks for all the help and advice :)

Regards


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:

> Hey Isaac ,
>
> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code changes
> look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for the following
> cases -
> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
>
>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API
> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your code
> changes)
>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of say 2-3
> seconds between two successive notifications.
>
> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that you
> would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when you merge
> your branch with master. Since your code modifications/additions have been
> done on the already existing code , I am pretty sure you would have to take
> care of these conflicts. Since the changes aren't that huge, you could
> manually copy them to the master branch or replace the entire system.js
> file in your branch in the master assuming you forked your branch out of
> master and there haven't been other changes in system.js file . First
> option is a safer approach though !!
>
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:
>
>> Hi Pranav:
>>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
>> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Pranav Saxena 
>> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, jessica.w...@citrix.com,
>> sonny.ch...@citrix.com
>> Cc: comm...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>
>>
>> Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the commits you
>> make your here . Once the code for handling nested query API calls are
>> ready , you can merge it into master.
>>
>> @Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the process of
>> re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle the nested query
>> API calls . You could review it once as well when he sends out a request
>> for merge . It should not be a big change though !
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pranav
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > Updated Branches:
>> >   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Isaac Chiang]

Hi all,
 I've been working on re-factoring the dedication UI code in these
days and just finished.
I discussed the requirements with Pranav before. The changes are listed as
following:

1. zone wizard: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3700)

Add a dedication step to activating zone process with rules as:
(A) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide correct
account information, the wizard will have an extra dedicating step
  when activating the newly created zone(show in the activating
steps).
(B) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide incorrect
account information, the wizard will return to "Setup Zone" step. Let

  the user has the opportunity to modify the acc or uncheck the
"dedicate" checkbox. It runs into two cases after the user click on fix
  error through the wizard:
  (a) If the user unchecks the "dedicate" checkbox this time,
the wizard will continue to finish the rest of the activating process
without
showing the dedicating step.
  (b) If the user provides the correct account this time, the
wizard will process the dedicating step again(show in the wizard) and
finish the rest of activating process

2. Create pod/cluster/host from dialog: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3388)
 Fix the dedication code to fit asynchronous dedication api commands.
The UI now shows correct notification message for the dedication operation.

Please let me know if you have any concerns, thanks! :)


Regards

Isaac









On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:

> Hi Pranav,
> I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next few
> days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like to
> copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the branch.
> Thanks for all the help and advice :)
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:
>
>> Hey Isaac ,
>>
>> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code
>> changes look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for the
>> following cases -
>> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
>> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
>> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
>>
>>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API
>> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your code
>> changes)
>>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of say
>> 2-3 seconds between two successive notifications.
>>
>> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that you
>> would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when you merge
>> your branch with master. Since your code modifications/additions have been
>> done on the already existing code , I am pretty sure you would have to take
>> care of these conflicts. Since the changes aren't that huge, you could
>> manually copy them to the master branch or replace the entire system.js
>> file in your branch in the master assuming you forked your branch out of
>> master and there haven't been other changes in system.js file . First
>> option is a safer approach though !!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pranav
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pranav:
>>>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
>>> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: Pranav Saxena 
>>> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, jessica.w...@citrix.com,
>>> sonny.ch...@citrix.com
>>> Cc: comm...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the commits
>>> you
>>> make your here . Once the code for handling nested query API calls are
>>> ready , you can merge it into master.
>>>
>>> @Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the process
>>> of
>>> re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle the nested query
>>> API calls . You could review it once as well when he sends out a request
>>> for merge . It should not be a big change though !
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pranav
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Updated Branches:
>>> >   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

RE: Git Push Summary

[Saksham Srivastava]

Not there in 4.2?

-Original Message-
From: Isaac Chiang [mailto:isaacchi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:12 PM
To: Pranav Saxena
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Git Push Summary

Hi all,
 I've been working on re-factoring the dedication UI code in these days 
and just finished.
I discussed the requirements with Pranav before. The changes are listed as
following:

1. zone wizard: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3700)

Add a dedication step to activating zone process with rules as:
(A) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide correct 
account information, the wizard will have an extra dedicating step
  when activating the newly created zone(show in the activating 
steps).
(B) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide incorrect 
account information, the wizard will return to "Setup Zone" step. Let

  the user has the opportunity to modify the acc or uncheck the 
"dedicate" checkbox. It runs into two cases after the user click on fix
  error through the wizard:
  (a) If the user unchecks the "dedicate" checkbox this time, the 
wizard will continue to finish the rest of the activating process without
showing the dedicating step.
  (b) If the user provides the correct account this time, the 
wizard will process the dedicating step again(show in the wizard) and
finish the rest of activating process

2. Create pod/cluster/host from dialog: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3388)
 Fix the dedication code to fit asynchronous dedication api commands.
The UI now shows correct notification message for the dedication operation.

Please let me know if you have any concerns, thanks! :)


Regards

Isaac









On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:

> Hi Pranav,
> I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next 
> few days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like 
> to copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the branch.
> Thanks for all the help and advice :)
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:
>
>> Hey Isaac ,
>>
>> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code 
>> changes look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for 
>> the following cases -
>> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
>> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
>> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
>>
>>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API 
>> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your 
>> code
>> changes)
>>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of 
>> say
>> 2-3 seconds between two successive notifications.
>>
>> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that 
>> you would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when 
>> you merge your branch with master. Since your code 
>> modifications/additions have been done on the already existing code , 
>> I am pretty sure you would have to take care of these conflicts. 
>> Since the changes aren't that huge, you could manually copy them to 
>> the master branch or replace the entire system.js file in your branch 
>> in the master assuming you forked your branch out of master and there 
>> haven't been other changes in system.js file . First option is a safer 
>> approach though !!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pranav
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pranav:
>>>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
>>> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: Pranav Saxena 
>>> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, jessica.w...@citrix.com, 
>>> sonny.ch...@citrix.com
>>> Cc: comm...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the 
>>> commits you make your here . Once the code for handling nested query 
>>> API calls are ready , you can merge it into master.
>>>
>>> @Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the 
>>> process of re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle 
>>> the nested query API calls . You could review it once as well when 
>>> he sends out a request for merge . It should not be a big change 
>>> though !
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pranav
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Updated Branches:
>>> >   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Pranav Saxena]

Thanks Isaac for making the relevant code changes there. I think you
probably committed it only to master . You would  need to cherry-pick it up
to asf/4.2 as well . Otherwise the changes you have made look good and in
accordance with the workflow we discussed .

Regards,
Pranav


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Saksham Srivastava <
saksham.srivast...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Not there in 4.2?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Isaac Chiang [mailto:isaacchi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:12 PM
> To: Pranav Saxena
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>
> Hi all,
>  I've been working on re-factoring the dedication UI code in these
> days and just finished.
> I discussed the requirements with Pranav before. The changes are listed as
> following:
>
> 1. zone wizard: (JIRA ticket :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3700)
>
> Add a dedication step to activating zone process with rules as:
> (A) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide correct
> account information, the wizard will have an extra dedicating step
>   when activating the newly created zone(show in the
> activating steps).
> (B) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide
> incorrect account information, the wizard will return to "Setup Zone" step.
> Let
>
>   the user has the opportunity to modify the acc or uncheck
> the "dedicate" checkbox. It runs into two cases after the user click on fix
>   error through the wizard:
>   (a) If the user unchecks the "dedicate" checkbox this time,
> the wizard will continue to finish the rest of the activating process
> without
> showing the dedicating step.
>   (b) If the user provides the correct account this time, the
> wizard will process the dedicating step again(show in the wizard) and
> finish the rest of activating process
>
> 2. Create pod/cluster/host from dialog: (JIRA ticket :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3388)
>  Fix the dedication code to fit asynchronous dedication api commands.
> The UI now shows correct notification message for the dedication operation.
>
> Please let me know if you have any concerns, thanks! :)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Chiang  >wrote:
>
> > Hi Pranav,
> > I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next
> > few days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like
> > to copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the
> branch.
> > Thanks for all the help and advice :)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Isaac ,
> >>
> >> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code
> >> changes look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for
> >> the following cases -
> >> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
> >> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
> >> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
> >>
> >>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API
> >> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your
> >> code
> >> changes)
> >>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of
> >> say
> >> 2-3 seconds between two successive notifications.
> >>
> >> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that
> >> you would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when
> >> you merge your branch with master. Since your code
> >> modifications/additions have been done on the already existing code ,
> >> I am pretty sure you would have to take care of these conflicts.
> >> Since the changes aren't that huge, you could manually copy them to
> >> the master branch or replace the entire system.js file in your branch
> >> in the master assuming you forked your branch out of master and there
> >> haven't been other changes in system.js file . First option is a safer
> approach though !!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pranav
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang  >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Pranav:
> >>>  I just pushed part of modi

Re: Git Push Summary

[Isaac Chiang]

Hi,
 I've cherry-picked these two commits into 4.2 branch.

Thanks

Isaac

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Saksham Srivastava <
saksham.srivast...@citrix.com> wrote:

> Not there in 4.2?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Isaac Chiang [mailto:isaacchi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:12 PM
> To: Pranav Saxena
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>
> Hi all,
>  I've been working on re-factoring the dedication UI code in these
> days and just finished.
> I discussed the requirements with Pranav before. The changes are listed as
> following:
>
> 1. zone wizard: (JIRA ticket :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3700)
>
> Add a dedication step to activating zone process with rules as:
> (A) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide correct
> account information, the wizard will have an extra dedicating step
>   when activating the newly created zone(show in the
> activating steps).
> (B) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide
> incorrect account information, the wizard will return to "Setup Zone" step.
> Let
>
>   the user has the opportunity to modify the acc or uncheck
> the "dedicate" checkbox. It runs into two cases after the user click on fix
>   error through the wizard:
>   (a) If the user unchecks the "dedicate" checkbox this time,
> the wizard will continue to finish the rest of the activating process
> without
> showing the dedicating step.
>   (b) If the user provides the correct account this time, the
> wizard will process the dedicating step again(show in the wizard) and
> finish the rest of activating process
>
> 2. Create pod/cluster/host from dialog: (JIRA ticket :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3388)
>  Fix the dedication code to fit asynchronous dedication api commands.
> The UI now shows correct notification message for the dedication operation.
>
> Please let me know if you have any concerns, thanks! :)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Chiang  >wrote:
>
> > Hi Pranav,
> > I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next
> > few days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like
> > to copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the
> branch.
> > Thanks for all the help and advice :)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Isaac ,
> >>
> >> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code
> >> changes look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for
> >> the following cases -
> >> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
> >> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
> >> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
> >>
> >>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API
> >> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your
> >> code
> >> changes)
> >>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of
> >> say
> >> 2-3 seconds between two successive notifications.
> >>
> >> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that
> >> you would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when
> >> you merge your branch with master. Since your code
> >> modifications/additions have been done on the already existing code ,
> >> I am pretty sure you would have to take care of these conflicts.
> >> Since the changes aren't that huge, you could manually copy them to
> >> the master branch or replace the entire system.js file in your branch
> >> in the master assuming you forked your branch out of master and there
> >> haven't been other changes in system.js file . First option is a safer
> approach though !!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Pranav
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang  >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Pranav:
> >>>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
> >>> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Regards
&g

RE: Git Push Summary

[Saksham Srivastava]

Isaac, I tried some of your changes. Looks good.

Regards,
Saksham

-Original Message-
From: Isaac Chiang [mailto:isaacchi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:12 PM
To: Pranav Saxena
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Git Push Summary

Hi all,
 I've been working on re-factoring the dedication UI code in these days 
and just finished.
I discussed the requirements with Pranav before. The changes are listed as
following:

1. zone wizard: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3700)

Add a dedication step to activating zone process with rules as:
(A) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide correct 
account information, the wizard will have an extra dedicating step
  when activating the newly created zone(show in the activating 
steps).
(B) if the user check the "dedicate" checkbox and provide incorrect 
account information, the wizard will return to "Setup Zone" step. Let

  the user has the opportunity to modify the acc or uncheck the 
"dedicate" checkbox. It runs into two cases after the user click on fix
  error through the wizard:
  (a) If the user unchecks the "dedicate" checkbox this time, the 
wizard will continue to finish the rest of the activating process without
showing the dedicating step.
  (b) If the user provides the correct account this time, the 
wizard will process the dedicating step again(show in the wizard) and
finish the rest of activating process

2. Create pod/cluster/host from dialog: (JIRA ticket :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3388)
 Fix the dedication code to fit asynchronous dedication api commands.
The UI now shows correct notification message for the dedication operation.

Please let me know if you have any concerns, thanks! :)


Regards

Isaac









On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:

> Hi Pranav,
> I'll do more tests before applying the code to master in next 
> few days. Since the UI code has been re-formatted yesterday, I'd like 
> to copy/paste the modified part into master instead of merging the branch.
> Thanks for all the help and advice :)
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Pranav Saxena  wrote:
>
>> Hey Isaac ,
>>
>> I verified your code changes in your private asf branch . The code 
>> changes look good to me. I am assuming that it would work fine for 
>> the following cases -
>> 1) Dedication is a success , addition of resource is a success
>> 2) Dedication is a failure , addition of resource is still a success
>> 3) Dedication is a failure , addition is also a failure
>>
>>  - All 3 cases should have notification displayed for each of the API 
>> calls getting triggered ( which I believe would be there after your 
>> code
>> changes)
>>  - Also you could provide a "setInterval" waiting time function of 
>> say
>> 2-3 seconds between two successive notifications.
>>
>> One thing which I realized after looking at your code changes is that 
>> you would have to bear the pain of resolving the merge conflicts when 
>> you merge your branch with master. Since your code 
>> modifications/additions have been done on the already existing code , 
>> I am pretty sure you would have to take care of these conflicts. 
>> Since the changes aren't that huge, you could manually copy them to 
>> the master branch or replace the entire system.js file in your branch 
>> in the master assuming you forked your branch out of master and there 
>> haven't been other changes in system.js file . First option is a safer 
>> approach though !!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pranav
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Isaac Chiang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pranav:
>>>  I just pushed part of modified code in to the branch.
>>> Please have a look if the commit fix the issue as expected.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: Pranav Saxena 
>>> Date: Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:52 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, jessica.w...@citrix.com, 
>>> sonny.ch...@citrix.com
>>> Cc: comm...@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Isaac for creating this branch. I'll keep an eye on the 
>>> commits you make your here . Once the code for handling nested query 
>>> API calls are ready , you can merge it into master.
>>>
>>> @Jessica - I have had conversations with Isaac and he is in the 
>>> process of re-factoring the code for dedicated resources to handle 
>>> the nested query API calls . You could review it once as well when 
>>> he sends out a request for merge . It should not be a big change 
>>> though !
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pranav
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Updated Branches:
>>> >   refs/heads/ui-dedicatedresources-refactoring [created] 22ddc3fa0
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: Git Push Summary

[Murali Reddy]

On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:

>Repository: cloudstack
>Updated Branches:
>  refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>

Hugo,

I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
be checked-in and then cut a branch?

Thanks,
Murali

Re: Git Push Summary

[Hugo Trippaers]

Hey Muralli,

The branch is already cut and the jenkins builds are setup. So i’m not going to 
recreate the 4.4 branch from master as all the version number are already 
updated.

Which merge request are you merging in? If you can squash it it will be easy to 
pull into master and 4.4.


Cheers,

Hugo



On 14 mrt. 2014, at 15:49, Murali Reddy  wrote:

> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
> 
>> Repository: cloudstack
>> Updated Branches:
>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>> 
> 
> Hugo,
> 
> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
> be checked-in and then cut a branch?
> 
> Thanks,
> Murali
> 

Re: Git Push Summary

[Murali Reddy]

On 14/03/14 8:24 PM, "Hugo Trippaers"  wrote:

>Hey Muralli,
>
>The branch is already cut and the jenkins builds are setup. So i¹m not
>going to recreate the 4.4 branch from master as all the version number
>are already updated.
>
>Which merge request are you merging in? If you can squash it it will be
>easy to pull into master and 4.4.

I am referring to region level VPC merge request. I will put squashed
commit in both 4.4 and master. Thanks for the clarification.

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cloudstack.apache.org/msg24747.html

>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Hugo
>
>
>
>On 14 mrt. 2014, at 15:49, Murali Reddy  wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Repository: cloudstack
>>> Updated Branches:
>>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>> 
>> 
>> Hugo,
>> 
>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
>> be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Murali
>> 
>
>

Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the
master and commit there features.
-1 for the timing to cut the branch !

On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:

>On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>
>>Repository: cloudstack
>>Updated Branches:
>>  refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>
>
>Hugo,
>
>I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
>be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>
>Thanks,
>Murali
>

Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Hugo Trippaers]

I announced the time when i would cut the branch in advance, so it shouldn’t be 
a surprise.

But like i replied to Muralli, if you have a pending merge request on the ML i 
see no problem with merging it in in the next few hours because of the trouble 
with master. Just make sure it hits both master and the 4.4 branch. I’ll even 
happily do it for you if you point me to the branch that needs to be merged 
into 4.4. Just make sure its rebased up to commit id 
48f8a95b06b0348ba1349cb5434183c2c18710db and not further.

Cheers,

Hugo

On 14 mrt. 2014, at 15:56, Abhinandan Prateek  
wrote:

> Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the
> master and commit there features.
> -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
> 
> On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
> 
>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Repository: cloudstack
>>> Updated Branches:
>>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>> 
>> 
>> Hugo,
>> 
>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
>> be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Murali
>> 
> 

Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Abhinandan Prateek]

Thanks Hugo ! Saw your reply bit late.

On 14/03/14 8:34 pm, "Hugo Trippaers"  wrote:

>I announced the time when i would cut the branch in advance, so it
>shouldn¹t be a surprise.
>
>But like i replied to Muralli, if you have a pending merge request on the
>ML i see no problem with merging it in in the next few hours because of
>the trouble with master. Just make sure it hits both master and the 4.4
>branch. I¹ll even happily do it for you if you point me to the branch
>that needs to be merged into 4.4. Just make sure its rebased up to commit
>id 48f8a95b06b0348ba1349cb5434183c2c18710db and not further.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Hugo
>
>On 14 mrt. 2014, at 15:56, Abhinandan Prateek
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the
>> master and commit there features.
>> -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
>> 
>> On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>>> 
 Repository: cloudstack
 Updated Branches:
 refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
 
>>> 
>>> Hugo,
>>> 
>>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready
>>>to
>>> be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Murali
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Mike Tutkowski]

Since a lot of devs are basing their features that have not yet been placed
in Git off of master (which is now 4.5), we need to make sure it is clear
not to rebase yourself beyond 48f8a95b06b0348ba1349cb5434183c2c18710db or
4.5 code that should not be in 4.4 could be brought into 4.4.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Hugo Trippaers  wrote:

> I announced the time when i would cut the branch in advance, so it
> shouldn't be a surprise.
>
> But like i replied to Muralli, if you have a pending merge request on the
> ML i see no problem with merging it in in the next few hours because of the
> trouble with master. Just make sure it hits both master and the 4.4 branch.
> I'll even happily do it for you if you point me to the branch that needs to
> be merged into 4.4. Just make sure its rebased up to commit id
> 48f8a95b06b0348ba1349cb5434183c2c18710db and not further.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
> On 14 mrt. 2014, at 15:56, Abhinandan Prateek <
> abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the
> > master and commit there features.
> > -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
> >
> > On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Repository: cloudstack
> >>> Updated Branches:
> >>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hugo,
> >>
> >> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
> >> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready to
> >> be checked-in and then cut a branch?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Murali
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud
*(tm)*

[ACS4.4] RE: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Sudha Ponnaganti]

Can time be given till PST EOD as many developers are also in this time zone?  
If specific features are being pulled in to 4.4, we might as well cut branch a 
little later where approved merge queue is cleared. 


-Original Message-
From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:56 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the master and 
commit there features.
-1 for the timing to cut the branch !

On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:

>On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>
>>Repository: cloudstack
>>Updated Branches:
>>  refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>
>
>Hugo,
>
>I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see 
>that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready 
>to be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>
>Thanks,
>Murali
>

Re: [ACS4.4] RE: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Hugo Trippaers]

The branch is already cut and master has already been switched to 4.5.0. I’ve 
announced that the switch would be at 14:00 CET, you can’t expect me to get up 
in the middle of the night to cut a release branch.

Cheers,

Hugo


On 14 mrt. 2014, at 16:09, Sudha Ponnaganti  wrote:

> Can time be given till PST EOD as many developers are also in this time zone? 
>  
> If specific features are being pulled in to 4.4, we might as well cut branch 
> a little later where approved merge queue is cleared. 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:56 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch
> 
> Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the master 
> and commit there features.
> -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
> 
> On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
> 
>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>> 
>>> Repository: cloudstack
>>> Updated Branches:
>>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>> 
>> 
>> Hugo,
>> 
>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see 
>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready 
>> to be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Murali
>> 
> 

Re: [ACS4.4] RE: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Marcus]

Yes, you did. I for one was up until 2AM trying to test my branch
against the current master to try to get it in, but gave up.

I think most people saw "Get your merge request in today because I'll
be cutting the branch on Friday". At the time that most of us in the
west read that email, "get your merge request in today" did not apply
because it was technically already too late per your time spec.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Hugo Trippaers  wrote:
> The branch is already cut and master has already been switched to 4.5.0. I've 
> announced that the switch would be at 14:00 CET, you can't expect me to get 
> up in the middle of the night to cut a release branch.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
>
> On 14 mrt. 2014, at 16:09, Sudha Ponnaganti  
> wrote:
>
>> Can time be given till PST EOD as many developers are also in this time zone?
>> If specific features are being pulled in to 4.4, we might as well cut branch 
>> a little later where approved merge queue is cleared.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:56 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch
>>
>> Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the master 
>> and commit there features.
>> -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
>>
>> On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Repository: cloudstack
>>>> Updated Branches:
>>>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hugo,
>>>
>>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready
>>> to be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Murali
>>>
>>
>

Re: [ACS4.4] RE: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch

[Hugo Trippaers]

Fair enough, i’ll try to send a reminder for the next phases a bit earlier. 
Just wanted to make sure that people wouldn’t forget to put their merge 
requests in on time. 

I’m trying to be a bit strict about the timing, we are already seeing the 
strain on the 4.3 release which isn’t even out there yet. Breaking master in 
such a bad way now is quite unfortunate, but actually not uncommon for us so 
close to a feature freeze. I’m willing to gamble that extending the feature 
freeze would have made it worse.

Again, anybody with a Merge request currently open on the ML has a fair point 
to merge the changes into the 4.4 branch as well as into master.

 


Cheers,

Hugo


On 14 mrt. 2014, at 16:23, Marcus  wrote:

> Yes, you did. I for one was up until 2AM trying to test my branch
> against the current master to try to get it in, but gave up.
> 
> I think most people saw "Get your merge request in today because I'll
> be cutting the branch on Friday". At the time that most of us in the
> west read that email, "get your merge request in today" did not apply
> because it was technically already too late per your time spec.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Hugo Trippaers  wrote:
>> The branch is already cut and master has already been switched to 4.5.0. 
>> I've announced that the switch would be at 14:00 CET, you can't expect me to 
>> get up in the middle of the night to cut a release branch.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Hugo
>> 
>> 
>> On 14 mrt. 2014, at 16:09, Sudha Ponnaganti  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Can time be given till PST EOD as many developers are also in this time 
>>> zone?
>>> If specific features are being pulled in to 4.4, we might as well cut 
>>> branch a little later where approved merge queue is cleared.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:56 AM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Git Push Summary : 4.4 feature branch
>>> 
>>> Yes, I think we could have checked with people struggling to fix the master 
>>> and commit there features.
>>> -1 for the timing to cut the branch !
>>> 
>>> On 14/03/14 8:19 pm, "Murali Reddy"  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 14/03/14 7:09 PM, "h...@apache.org"  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Repository: cloudstack
>>>>> Updated Branches:
>>>>> refs/heads/4.4 [created] 3ee1fc28d
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hugo,
>>>> 
>>>> I was holding off merge to master, as it seems to be broken now. I see
>>>> that you already created 4.4 branch. Can we wait till master is ready
>>>> to be checked-in and then cut a branch?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Murali
>>>> 
>>> 
>>