Re: [ACS-4.4] Cherry-pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Harikrishna Patnala
 wrote:
> aa75b4388554a502b1073dd78050cd4b364a803e


is in

-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
 wrote:
> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d

Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning

-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>  wrote:
>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>
> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>
> --
> Daan



-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Amogh Vasekar]

Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But deploydb
went fine on 4.4

Thanks,
Amogh

On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland 
>wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>>  wrote:
>>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>
>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>
>
>
>-- 
>Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.

I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
sneak it's way into the release:

@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
   CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
FOREIGN KEY 
`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id`)
REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
CASCADE
 ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
the end user';
+
+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
detail can be displayed to the end user',
+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
+
 INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
UPDATE category='Advanced';

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
 wrote:
> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But deploydb
> went fine on 4.4
>
> Thanks,
> Amogh
>
> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>
>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland 
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>>>  wrote:
 c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>>>
>>> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daan
>



-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Nitin Mehta]

Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.

Thanks,
-Nitin

On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:

>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>
>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>sneak it's way into the release:
>
>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>   CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>FOREIGN KEY 
>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>`)
>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>CASCADE
> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>
>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>the end user';
>+
>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>+
> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>
>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> wrote:
>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>>deploydb
>> went fine on 4.4
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Amogh
>>
>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>>
>>>Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>>>setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>>>
>>>wrote:
 On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
  wrote:
> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d

 Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning

 --
 Daan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Daan
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
remove them.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta  wrote:
> Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
> as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
>
> Thanks,
> -Nitin
>
> On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>
>>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>>
>>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>>sneak it's way into the release:
>>
>>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>>   CONSTRAINT `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>>FOREIGN KEY
>>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>>`)
>>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>>CASCADE
>> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>>
>>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>>the end user';
>>+
>>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>>+
>> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> wrote:
>>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>>>deploydb
>>> went fine on 4.4
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Amogh
>>>
>>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>>>
Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland

wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>  wrote:
>> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>
> Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>
> --
> Daan



--
Daan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daan
>



-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Mike Tutkowski]

Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
branch.

A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry picked
to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.

Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into 4.4.1
(assuming such a release happens).


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
> remove them.
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta 
> wrote:
> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Nitin
> >
> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
> >
> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
> >>
> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
> >>sneak it's way into the release:
> >>
> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
> >>   CONSTRAINT
> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
> >>FOREIGN KEY
>
> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
> >>`)
> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
> >>CASCADE
> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >>
> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
> >>the end user';
> >>+
> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
> >>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> >>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
> >>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
> >>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
> >>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
> >>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
> >>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >>+
> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
> >>
> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >> wrote:
> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
> >>>deploydb
> >>> went fine on 4.4
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Amogh
> >>>
> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
> >>>
> Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
> setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
> 
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >  wrote:
> >> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
> >
> > Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Daan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Daan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>



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

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
of 4.4 is not very useful.



On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
 wrote:
> Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
> branch.
>
> A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry picked
> to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
>
> Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into 4.4.1
> (assuming such a release happens).
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
>
>> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
>> remove them.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put in
>> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in 4.4.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Nitin
>> >
>> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>> >
>> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>> >>
>> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>> >>sneak it's way into the release:
>> >>
>> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> >>   CONSTRAINT
>> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>> >>FOREIGN KEY
>>
>> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>> >>`)
>> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>> >>CASCADE
>> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >>
>> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>> >>the end user';
>> >>+
>> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>> >>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>> >>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>> >>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>> >>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>> >>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>> >>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>> >>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >>+
>> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>> >>>deploydb
>> >>> went fine on 4.4
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Amogh
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>> >>>
>> Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>> setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >  wrote:
>> >> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>> >
>> > Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the morning
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Daan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Daan
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> *™*



-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Mike Tutkowski]

I see, Daan - thanks for the clarification.

This is probably another good reason why we should seriously consider
implementing the branching approach Sebastien recommended here:

http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Daan Hoogland 
wrote:

> That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
> don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
> the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
> suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
> people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
> from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
> of 4.4 is not very useful.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>  wrote:
> > Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
> > branch.
> >
> > A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry
> picked
> > to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
> >
> > Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into
> 4.4.1
> > (assuming such a release happens).
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
> >> remove them.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put
> in
> >> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in
> 4.4.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > -Nitin
> >> >
> >> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
> >> >>
> >> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
> >> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
> >> >>sneak it's way into the release:
> >> >>
> >> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
> >> >>   CONSTRAINT
> >> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
> >> >>FOREIGN KEY
> >>
> >>
> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
> >> >>`)
> >> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
> >> >>CASCADE
> >> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >> >>
> >> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
> >> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
> >> >>the end user';
> >> >>+
> >> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
> >> >>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
> >> >>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
> >> >>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
> >> >>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
> >> >>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
> >> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
> >> >>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
> >> >>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
> >> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
> >> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
> >> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
> >> >>+
> >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
> >> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
> >> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
> >> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
> >> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
> >> >>
> >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
> >> >>>deploydb
> >> >>> went fine on 4.4
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Amogh
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" 
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
> >> setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
> >> 
> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
> >> >
> >> > Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the
> morning
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Daan
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Daan
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daan
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
> > *™*
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>



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

Re: [ACS 4.4] Cherry pick request

[Daan Hoogland]

Well, maybe, we are not even far of from it. call 'master' 'develop'
and create a new 'master'. next make sure every body develops in a
feature branch. also call x.y-forward hotfix-x.y. Don't bet your life
this approach is going to save our world. What would really help is if
everybody would really study the post and become an RM themselves.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Mike Tutkowski
 wrote:
> I see, Daan - thanks for the clarification.
>
> This is probably another good reason why we should seriously consider
> implementing the branching approach Sebastien recommended here:
>
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Daan Hoogland 
> wrote:
>
>> That is not the confusion Mike. The problem is that some changes that
>> don't go into 4.4 keep causing conflicts. I made the mistake of adding
>> the conflicting lines this time. this 4.4-forward branch is not
>> suitable for providing cherry-picks for an RM because of this. I thin
>> people should just branch 4.4 for their changes and let me cherry-pick
>> from there. Also the automation tests running on 4.4-forward instead
>> of 4.4 is not very useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>>  wrote:
>> > Perhaps there is some confusion again as to the nature of the 4.4-forward
>> > branch.
>> >
>> > A while back, we agreed that changes put in here would not be cherry
>> picked
>> > to 4.4 unless requested so by the developer and agreed to by the RM.
>> >
>> > Changes in 4.4-forward that do not go into 4.4 will at least go into
>> 4.4.1
>> > (assuming such a release happens).
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Daan Hoogland 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> They keep coming in with cherry-picks that include this file. I will
>> >> remove them.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Nitin Mehta 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Daan - I am not sure I get your point here. These changes were put
>> in
>> >> > as I want them in 4.4.1, but were not critical enough to be put in
>> 4.4.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > -Nitin
>> >> >
>> >> > On 17/07/14 2:58 PM, "Daan Hoogland"  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>sure? I saw that the last few lines where not in the last version.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm not confortable with this bit, it has been coming up a few time
>> >> >>before already looks like some commit on 4.4-forward is trying to
>> >> >>sneak it's way into the release:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>@@ -2439,4 +2474,16 @@
>> >> >>   CONSTRAINT
>> >> `fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`
>> >> >>FOREIGN KEY
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>`fk_lb_healthcheck_policy_details__lb_healthcheck_policy_id`(`lb_policy_id
>> >> >>`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `load_balancer_healthcheck_policies`(`id`) ON DELETE
>> >> >>CASCADE
>> >> >> ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>
>> >> >>+ALTER TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy` ADD COLUMN `display` tinyint(1)
>> >> >>NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the policy can be displayed to
>> >> >>the end user';
>> >> >>+
>> >> >>+CREATE TABLE `cloud`.`snapshot_policy_details` (
>> >> >>+  `id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment,
>> >> >>+  `policy_id` bigint unsigned NOT NULL COMMENT 'snapshot policy id',
>> >> >>+  `name` varchar(255) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+  `value` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
>> >> >>+  `display` tinyint(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1' COMMENT 'True if the
>> >> >>detail can be displayed to the end user',
>> >> >>+  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
>> >> >>+  CONSTRAINT `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id` FOREIGN
>> >> >>KEY `fk_snapshot_policy_details__snapshot_policy_id`(`policy_id`)
>> >> >>REFERENCES `snapshot_policy`(`id`) ON DELETE CASCADE
>> >> >>+) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
>> >> >>+
>> >> >> INSERT INTO `cloud`.`configuration`(category, instance, component,
>> >> >>name, value, description, default_value) VALUES ('Advanced',
>> >> >>'DEFAULT', 'management-server', 'vm.password.length', '6', 'Specifies
>> >> >>the length of a randomly generated password', '6') ON DUPLICATE KEY
>> >> >>UPDATE category='Advanced';
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> Seems good, looks like was an issue with a newline somewhere. But
>> >> >>>deploydb
>> >> >>> went fine on 4.4
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>> Amogh
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 7/17/14 2:42 PM, "Daan Hoogland" 
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> Amogh, I couldn't help myself. please have a look at the resulting
>> >> setup/db/db/schema-430to440.sql
>> >> 
>> >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Amogh Vasekar
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >> c8ca15b95a57a3d79b71c76c913e295f6490f05d
>> >> >
>> >> > Amogh, it has conflicts. I will have a look at those in the
>> morning
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Daan
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> --
>> >> Daan
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>Daan
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Re: [ACS 4.4] cherry-pick request for CLOUDSTACK-5077

[Bharat Kumar]

Hi Daan,

updating the link to diff.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=99b4cf788eded0f6f155ff8cda51aeb2e505f764

Thanks
Bharat.
On 05-May-2014, at 3:36 pm, Bharat Kumar 
mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com>> wrote:

Hi Daan,

please cherry pick the following commit  to  4.4 branch.
commit 489bb0c7edf6ab011895d5f082328eb5fe48aac1 in cloudstack 4.4-forward 
branch.
link to diff  Cloudstack-5077: reserve cpu and memory only when 
vmware.reserve.cpu/mem are 
…

Thanks,
Bharat.

Re: [ACS 4.4] cherry-pick request for CLOUDSTACK-5077

[Daan Hoogland]

thanks Bharat,

It is in.
I run git show on every commit that I then git cherry-pick so you
don't need to send me a link. the full id will do.

regards,
Daan

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Bharat Kumar  wrote:
> Hi Daan,
>
> updating the link to diff.
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=99b4cf788eded0f6f155ff8cda51aeb2e505f764
>
> Thanks
> Bharat.
> On 05-May-2014, at 3:36 pm, Bharat Kumar 
> mailto:bharat.ku...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Daan,
>
> please cherry pick the following commit  to  4.4 branch.
> commit 489bb0c7edf6ab011895d5f082328eb5fe48aac1 in cloudstack 4.4-forward 
> branch.
> link to diff  Cloudstack-5077: reserve cpu and memory only when 
> vmware.reserve.cpu/mem are 
> …
>
> Thanks,
> Bharat.
>
>
>



-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] cherry-pick request for CLOUDSTACK-6935

[Yoshikazu Nojima]

Daan,

Could you cherry-pick 45f0c7367680f4bfbcee470139b708d69322be78 instead
of cd414a0f56798ae801fc464be127e37daabef809?

Regards,
Noji

2014-06-18 11:59 GMT-06:00 Yoshikazu Nojima :
> Daan,
>
> Could you cherry-pick the commit
> "cd414a0f56798ae801fc464be127e37daabef809" into 4.4?
> This is a fix to the bug CLOUDSTACK-6935.
>
> Bug description:
> Some storage pool filtering logic like hypervisor type check, storage
> type check for root volume and avoid list check is not enabled in
> ZoneWideStoragePoolAllocator.
>
> Regards,
> Noji

Re: [ACS 4.4] cherry-pick request for CLOUDSTACK-6935

[Daan Hoogland]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Yoshikazu Nojima  wrote:
> 45f0c7367680f4bfbcee470139b708d69322be78


is in

-- 
Daan

Re: [ACS 4.4] cherry-pick request for CLOUDSTACK-6463 and CLOUDSTACK-6466

[Daan Hoogland]

both in

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Harikrishna Patnala
 wrote:
> Hi Daan,
>
> Could you cherry pick the following commits to 4.4 branch
>
> 1) Commit ce3074e9a23e71855798cb5decd01d7f9958f6c0 in cloudstack's branch 
> refs/heads/4.4-forward
> [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=ce3074e ]
> CLOUDSTACK-6463: password is not set for VMs created from password enabled 
> template
>
> 2) Commit 508e3e2c9b08850049a046bc5a22941e481fad5e in cloudstack's branch 
> refs/heads/4.4-forward
> [ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=508e3e2 ]
> CLOUDSTACK-6466: cpu and ram is not getting updated correctly in 
> usage_vm_instance table for usage type 2
>
>
> Thank you,
> Harikrishna
>



-- 
Daan