s.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:12 AM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: Alex Huang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> On Wed
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 10:45:32AM -0800, Edison Su wrote:
> There are unit test and integration test cases for storage components are
> using Spring and TestNG.
> For example, there is a maven project called, *storage-integration-test*,
> which can conduct integration test with storage engine, s
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Huang
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 2:23 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Edison Su
> Subject: RE: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > How about unit tests for the Javelin
pache.org; Edison Su
> > Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 02:23:27PM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> > > > Alex,
> > > >
> > > > How about unit tests for the Javelin code itself? Were any created?
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 8:00 AM
> To: Alex Huang
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> On Tue, Feb 05,
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 02:23:27PM -0800, Alex Huang wrote:
> > Alex,
> >
> > How about unit tests for the Javelin code itself? Were any created?
> > Are there any that can be created?
> >
> > While the merge is already complete, this seems like a great time for
> > the new structure to have uni
> Alex,
>
> How about unit tests for the Javelin code itself? Were any created?
> Are there any that can be created?
>
> While the merge is already complete, this seems like a great time for
> the new structure to have unit tests built into it.
>
There were no unit tests for the Spring DI and
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> John,
>
> While 1/31 is code-freeze, it doesn't mean dev stops writing unit tests to
> test out their code or new code to fix problems when qa find bugs. Without
> javelin in, it will mean they need to write once in today's home-grown
> comp
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I think the existing plan laid out is a good compromise.
Thanks... and I hope that my comments about a "better way for the
future" are also reflective of your concerns Marcus.
I just want to be clear, since I was the first to raise concerns, that
I appreciate the work that has been put into javelin. It's been said
multiple times now in various ways that merging is a form of reward
for a job well done, and that denying that will affect the passion or
drive of the develope
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Kelven Yang wrote:
> It will be a long journey to shape CloudStack into a better
> next-generation structure, this is just a start and this is why we'd like
> to get it more early than later. Otherwise, it may take another 4 months
> to get the idea into CloudStack
On 1/28/13 10:49 PM, "Alex Karasulu" wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Sheng Liang
>wrote:
>
>> > At the same time we are really close to freeze, this potentially
>>blocks
>> the work of others; and while it should be mostly innocuous, it is
>>still a
>> large amount of disruption, for
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43:33AM -0500, Alex Huang wrote:
> > > It is also true CloudStack does not have a good automated regression test
> > > suite to make sure a check-in like this does not break some other features
> > > in CloudStack. But lack of a thorough automated regression suite a probl
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> I had a chat with Chip on IRC. His concerns is how does javelin merge cause
> rippling effects in existing branches that are still out there and the
> patches on review board. His proposal is to do the following,
>
> - Maintain two branches
> > It is also true CloudStack does not have a good automated regression test
> > suite to make sure a check-in like this does not break some other features
> > in CloudStack. But lack of a thorough automated regression suite a problem
> > with CloudStack in general. We've let in other big changes
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Sheng Liang wrote:
> > At the same time we are really close to freeze, this potentially blocks
> the work of others; and while it should be mostly innocuous, it is still a
> large amount of disruption, for what appears to me to be > precious little
> benefit for t
2013 3:20 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> Alex,
>
> I agree that the risk I am describing is always present, and that unit tests
> only
> serve to reduce it. However, the typical mitigation of this risk is time
cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I mentioned to Chip on IRC that the biggest challenge for me is that there is
>> not a unit test suite that we can run before and after the merge to verify
>
: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> I don't think anyone is questioning the benefit of moving to spring
> framework, as it has already been established and people are moving
> forward on it. The question is, if spring is merged now, as opposed to
> Friday, are there any features
onsibility.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 11:49 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Alex
I don't think anyone is questioning the benefit of moving to spring
framework, as it has already been established and people are moving
forward on it. The question is, if spring is merged now, as opposed to
Friday, are there any features besides the storage (which has been
mentioned will be functio
urw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:43 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> David,
>
> I mentioned to Chip on IRC that the biggest challenge for me is that there is
> not a unit test suite that we can
> At the same time we are really close to freeze, this potentially blocks the
> work of others; and while it should be mostly innocuous, it is still a large
> amount of disruption, for what appears to me to be > precious little benefit
> for the project or the 4.1 release.
> So why are we push
> Chip,
>
> Again, we have to divide this into two parts.
>
> For Spring changes:
>
> I think it will have some effect on any pending feature to be merged but it
> will not be very large. It's a matter of changing some annotations at the
> component level.
>
> As for is there any pending featu
>
> Alex - I'm specifically concerned about getting the pending features
> into master. Does merging Javelin (1) not impact those pending
> features, and (2) is it a pre-requisite to any pending features?
> What's the harm in merging into master immediately after the 4.1
> branch is cut? That wo
David,
I mentioned to Chip on IRC that the biggest challenge for me is that there is
not a unit test suite that we can run before and after the merge to verify it.
Therefore, until we expand our unit test coverage, merges of structural changes
such as javelin will carry an inherently higher ri
On Jan 28, 2013, at 2:48 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>>> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I
>>> think John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue
>>> from landing javelin at this point? Obviousl
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I
>> think John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue
>> from landing javelin at this point? Obviously after code freeze no new
>> features get to make it in, s
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:08 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers
> wrote:
>
> Obviously that doesn't answer the question for this release, and I
> think John's question is a good one. What benefits does 4.1 accrue
> from landing javelin at this point? Obviously after code freeze no new
> features get to make it in, so from a feature standpoint, if it isn't
> directly enabl
January 28, 2013 7:25 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Huang
> Subject: Re: [MERGE][ACS41] javelin to master
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, John Burwell
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I echo Marcus' concerns regarding the timing of su
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, John Burwell wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I echo Marcus' concerns regarding the timing of such a "high touch" change
>> landing in master. We are two days before code freeze. What 4.1.0
>> features/capabilities
If we don't, I'd like to see it go in soon because we (and perhaps
others) are now waiting on merging until we see what's going on with
javelin.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Chip Childers
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, John Burwell wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I echo Marcus' concerns reg
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, John Burwell wrote:
> All,
>
> I echo Marcus' concerns regarding the timing of such a "high touch" change
> landing in master. We are two days before code freeze. What 4.1.0
> features/capabilities are gained by merging javelin? Can someone speak to
> the re
All,
I echo Marcus' concerns regarding the timing of such a "high touch" change
landing in master. We are two days before code freeze. What 4.1.0
features/capabilities are gained by merging javelin? Can someone speak to the
regression test strategy that has been employed to verify the stabil
I put a wiki article about this at,
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Using+Spring+in+Clou
dStack
It explains some of the motivations for trying Spring in javelin together
with the architecture cleanup work, as Alex has pointed, it does not
change the business logic behind,
>
> Do you have consensus on the storage piece?
> I didn't walk away from the storage meeting with the impression that
> consensus had been achieved, and there's another meeting on it next
> week...
>
We did not reach yet because John had something to take care of. We agreed to
hold another me
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
>>
>> We are requesting merge from javelin to master. We have merged all
>> changes from master as of 1/24/2013. Will do another merge to make sure
>> javelin is updated once it's passed the 72 hours.
>>
>> The content of the merge is the stora
Hi Marcus,
> For mt own clarification, the storage refactoring code is in javelin, but
> cloudstack is currently not using it, correct? At this point I was thinking
> to myself that the storage refactor was not going to make 4.1, due to some
> of the discussions and updates. Or if it did that we w
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Alex Huang wrote:
> >
> > We are requesting merge from javelin to master. We have merged all
> > changes from master as of 1/24/2013. Will do another merge to make sure
> > javelin is updated once it's passed the 72 hours.
> >
> > The content of the merge is the
>
> We are requesting merge from javelin to master. We have merged all
> changes from master as of 1/24/2013. Will do another merge to make sure
> javelin is updated once it's passed the 72 hours.
>
> The content of the merge is the storage framework refactoring and
> converting everything use
41 matches
Mail list logo
