Re: Release Notes

Paul, Please note that this tool only considers PR merges, so if a commit is made directly against master, it will not show up in this list as it did not have an associated PR. Also, it may be worth noting that some PRs (like this one: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2211) are actually m

Re: Release Notes

​Hey Paul, You can pull down the latest code and everything should be working now: ​ https://github.com/swill/generate_acs_rn I updated the tool to handle PRs merged through Github since I was originally only handling PRs which were merged through the `git pr ` utility tool we had as part of o

RE: Release Notes

Thanks guys! Kind regards, Paul Angus From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Will Stevens Sent: 03 January 2018 16:01 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Paul Angus Subject: Re: Release Notes Thanks Rafael! I am working on it now and will see if I can g

Re: Release Notes

Thanks Rafael! I am working on it now and will see if I can get a working version sorted in the next hour or so. The PR number is in the commit, but just not in the format I was expecting. It is at the end of the line in the format (#.). I will have something soon. *Will Stevens* CTO

Re: Release Notes

I believe people are "merging" without the merge commit now that we are using the Gitbox experiment. When merging (I think most people are using the button in Github) there is an option to merge without creating a merge commit, and I think this is what happening. On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Wi

Re: Release Notes

Hey Paul, Unfortunately, it looks as though we have recently changed the way we are handling merging code. Instead of merging the PRs through Github, we seem to be doing something else. This means that we don't have the "Merge pull request #2359 from ..." lines on all the merges anymore. I will

Re: test file sticking around

thanks guys, I did it in an @After-method anyway to make sure it still gets cleaned on exceptions. enjoy https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2384 On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > +1 remove after test finishes. > > > > - Rohit > > > > > >

RE: Master Blockers and Criticals

Hi All, Happy New Year to everyone. We're getting close to looking really good. Last call to Jayapal... I think there is an argument to downgrade 9885 from blocker to critical as it's quite a corner case and we're not getting any traction on a resolution. Otherwise can we have a big push to clo

RE: Release Notes

Hey there Will, Happy New Year to you! I seem to be getting a very truncated list. I’m using 9d2893d44a3c3a4829be0964cc991272c1d13e4d as the commit sha for the last release. And github token is obviously working. Any ideas ? .. cssclass:: table-striped table-bordered table-hover +-

Re: test file sticking around

+1 remove after test finishes. - Rohit From: Daan Hoogland Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:17:04 PM To: dev Subject: test file sticking around devs, This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named 'service

Re: test file sticking around

+1 for removal. Do you need to do this in the @After? If it is a single test method that is creating this file, why not delete it after the assertions? On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > devs, > > This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named > 'services/se

test file sticking around

devs, This has been bugging me but not enough to tackle: a file named 'services/secondary-storage/server/testfile' is created during the build and I think it is created in NfsSecondaryStorageResourceTest.testSwiftWriteMetadataFile(). I want to solve this with an @After method. Any reason not to? l

[CVE-2013-4317] Apache CloudStack information disclosure vulnerability

The Apache CloudStack’s security team turns public the CVE-2013-4317. *Severity*: High *Vendor*: The Apache Software Foundation *Versions Affected*: Apache CloudStack 4.1.0, 4.1.1 *Description*: When calling the CloudStack API call listProjectAccounts as a regular, non-administrative user, the

Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

+1 On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > +1 > > > Op 3 jan. 2018 om 09:02 heeft Rohit Yadav > het volgende geschreven: > > > > +0 > > > > > > - Rohit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rafael Weingärtner > >

Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

+1 > Op 3 jan. 2018 om 09:02 heeft Rohit Yadav het > volgende geschreven: > > +0 > > > - Rohit > > > > > > > From: Rafael Weingärtner > Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:16:24 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: [V

Re: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches.

+0 - Rohit From: Rafael Weingärtner Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 5:16:24 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Clean up old and obsolete branches. Hope you guys had great holy days! Resuming the discussion we sta