Thanks Rohit, looks nice!
+1 (binding)
Did some basic testing, works fine so far!
Remi
From: Rohit Yadav
Sent: 12 March 2019 07:33
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CloudStack CloudMonkey 6.0.0
Thanks all for testing, we need o
Hi Daan,
In my opinion the biggest issue is the fact that there are a lot of different
code paths: VPC versus non-VPC, VPC versus redundant-VPC, etc. That's why you
cannot simply switch from a single VPC to a redundant VPC for example.
For SBP, we mitigated that in Cosmic by converting all non
Hi Lucian,
Not 100% sure but it looks like you have multiple physical networks with
type=guest? If that’s the case, you need tags to distinguish between the two.
You’d tag the physical networks, and also do that in network offerings. Then
CloudStack knows which one to use.
Regards,
Remi
On
Hi Sven, Frank,
We hit this issue too last year in our CloudStack fork, and this is how we
resolved it:
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloudOldRepos/cosmic-plugin-hypervisor-kvm/pull/14
Shouldn’t be too hard to port to current CloudStack, but I have no time to do
it and test it. We have been
Hi,
We solved this problem by splitting the network in an underlay and overlay
network. The underlay is the physical network, including the management traffic
and storage from hypervisors and such. The simpler, the better. In the overlay
there’s your services layer, for example the guest networ
Hi Nathan,
Great feature! I've also been in situations where we had to keep the mac adress
the same. Until now hacked the DB to make it happen, so this is way better.
Will see if I can test it in the coming days.
Thanks, Remi
_
From: Nathan Johnson mailto:njohn...@e
l requests.
Regards.
From: Remi Bergsma
Sent: 03 May 2017 16:58:18
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0
Hi,
The patches I talked about:
1) Iptables speed i
n Wed, May 3, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Remi Bergsma
wrote:
> Hi Wido,
>
> When we had similar issues last year, we found that for example comparing
> the iptables rules one-by-one is 1000x slower than simply loading them all
> at once. Boris rewrote this part i
Hi Wido,
When we had similar issues last year, we found that for example comparing the
iptables rules one-by-one is 1000x slower than simply loading them all at once.
Boris rewrote this part in our Cosmic fork, may be worth looking into this
again. The PR to CloudStack was merged, but reverted
will have a fix if people start to complain. :P
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
<https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>>
wrote:
> I dont think the remote access feature is used a lot in our deploys, so I
> would as
trying to find a
>> working configuration, but when xl2tpd is stopped, it goes down hard and
>> when it comes back up it can't find the same tunnel, so the tunnel is
>> dropped.
>>
>> I will review your config to see how you are handling this.
>>
>> Tha
Hi all,
While I haven’t investigated this issue, it does sound similar to what I fixed
in Cosmic (our fork) last month.
This code does a down/up of the VPN connection:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/configure.py#L547-L548
We found t
wonder how to do it but
that is another story :)
René
On 03/11/2017 08:40 AM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
> Hi René,
>
> I just posted some screenshots on the PR that show a VM can be part of
more than one VPC (mail wouldn’t allow screenshots) so please hav
Hi René,
I just posted some screenshots on the PR that show a VM can be part of more
than one VPC (mail wouldn’t allow screenshots) so please have a look at Github.
Regards, Remi
On 10/03/2017, 17:52, "Rene Moser" wrote:
Hi
I created https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1999
FYI testing this patch as it seems related to the issue I observe:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/925
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Jun 2016, at 17:41, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>
> This is about xenserver 6.5.
>
> Regards, Remi
>
> Sent from my i
This is about xenserver 6.5.
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 26 Jun 2016, at 14:14, Will Stevens wrote:
>
> Which hypervisor are you using?
>> On Jun 26, 2016 2:00 AM, "Remi Bergsma" wrote:
>>
>> Hi Makrand,
>>
>> Thanks for the i
es). (We eventually ditched Cluster primary).
>
> --
> Best,
> Makrand
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Remi Bergsma
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Anshul,
>>
>> Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage
>> between clusters?
Hi Anshul,
Thanks! Did you ever try live migrating from CloudStack with storage between
clusters? I can't get that to work. I'll collect some details in the next days
but was wondering if it was supposed to work.
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 24 Jun 2016, at 06:30, Anshul Gangwar
Hi Simon,
Do you have the exact stept to reproduce?
To me it sounds like the issue is in either the ovsVifDriver or the VXLAN
stuff. Can you reproduce the scenario in the bubble (with its default
vlan/bridgeVifDriver)?
If there is a clear scenario, I think we should write an integration test (e
Hi,
The sorting I did was in JavaScript on the UI so that's probably not it as you
see it in the API, right?
Can you check if the database load is spiking during these calls? Sounds like
an index problem or so.
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 03 Jun 2016, at 13:23, dsclose (JIRA) w
Hi Wido,
I've fixed that recently, just need to find the time to backport it :-s
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/cosmic-core/pull/138
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 03 Jun 2016, at 12:10, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
>> Op 1 juni 2016 om 11:10 schreef Özhan Rüzgar Karaman
As far as I know previous versions were based on Centos 5 even ;-)
Regards, Remi
> On 25 May 2016, at 16:55, Rafael Weingärtner
> wrote:
>
> Oh, I did know that, thanks for sharing Will.
>
> I was reading their Release notes; it seems that their “major changes”
> section does not reflect the
There is a Jenkins job that you can feed a branch and have it build a template.
Ask PL she knows how it works.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 14 May 2016, at 00:05, Will Stevens wrote:
>
> That is helpful, but I need to release an official ACS template with the
> release and it needs to be built fr
Hi Prashanth,
As Wei suggested, when you use CloudStack 4.6/4.7/4.8/4.9 you also need the
systemvm template with version 4.6.0. This does include the needed Python
modules. The 4.4 template you used won't fly. You will run into other missing
packages and changes as well.
Regards, Remi
Sent
Hi Will,
For me it is solved by installing two packages; did you pull this pr? We fixed
it in cosmic and ported it to the cloudstack config as well.
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/bubble-toolkit/pull/123/files
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 03 May 2016, at 19:25, Will Stev
If this is about KVM and ovs vifdriver (we use NSX which uses ovs) then an
issue we recently fixed may be the same issue as you have here.
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/cosmic-plugin-hypervisor-kvm/pull/14
When I find some spare time I can look into backporting it.
Regards, Remi
>
Let's make this your first PR Lucian ;-)
You can do it! Let me know if you need help :-)
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 27 Apr 2016, at 10:06, Nux! wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Can we pull this in as well? A simple fix to a silly simple issue (wrong CPU
> count for libvirt)?
>
> https:/
l STEVENS*
>> > Lead Developer
>> >
>> > *CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
>> > 420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
>> > w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Daan H
Great to see more and more people use the bubbles!
Setting up:
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/bubble-blueprint
Using:
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/bubble-toolkit
Happy testing :-)
Regards, Remi
> On 07 Apr 2016, at 19:56, Will Stevens wrote:
>
> If you want me to verif
Indeed. If a merge fails then you'll not be able to merge it to master or
another release branch later on anyway so the author must rebase against the
base branch first. No need spending test cycles on that.
Most likely github already reports that PR as 'unstable' so you could also
check for t
To be more exact: Merge to the base branch the PR was created against. Could be
master, could be 4.7 and such. The code snipped I linked to also does that.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 28 Mar 2016, at 09:13, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>
> Hi Sanjeev,
>
> I’d propose taking the latest ma
Hi Sanjeev,
I’d propose taking the latest master, ensure it is up2date, make a temp branch
then merge the PR to be tested on that. This ensures you test the result of the
merge, like it will happen om master.
For the merging, use the same script we use when we merge for real:
https://github.com
ms to be
> merged which resolves CLOUDSTACK-9255. So not sure if PR#1449 is still of
> interest..
>
> Do you know when the system vm with these fixes (PR1356) is available on
> http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/systemvm/ ?
>
> regards
> Martin
>
>
>> On 03/18/2016 0
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the fix, didn’t catch you attachment first time.
Would it be possible for you to send a Pull Request? Is this patch against
master or a release branch? Generally speaking it’s best to make a PR against a
release branch, 4.7 would be fine I guess in this case. Once it’s a P
PRs needs to be tested obviously, that is the current impediment. The moment
you test a PR, you get current master and merge the PR and test that result.
Once it’s OK, merge it to master and take next one, etc. I wouldn’t start
rebasing, as you’ll have a lot of work and will need to keep doing t
Hi,
This issue has been resolved some time ago but unfortunately the PR hasn’t been
merged nor tested yet.
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1400
This PR makes it like 50-60 times faster, because it first generates all
iptables commands and then loads them once.
We run this in product
Hi Bharat,
I’d say remove the tests that fail, to get a report with only tests that pass.
Regards,
Remi
From: Bharat Kumar
mailto:bharat.ku...@accelerite.com>>
Date: Tuesday 15 March 2016 at 10:40
To: Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apac
Hi Bharat,
I’d suggest removing all tests that fail for some reason, not being an error in
the PR. This will result in a smaller set of tests that “always pass”. Once a
test doesn’t pass anymore, we know the PR has an issue. Then your CI system
provides value.
Right now, there are so many fail
confirm.
>
>Could you provide new code for user-data/meta-data?
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With kind regards,
>
>Swen
>
>
>-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>Von: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
>Gesendet: Samstag, 12. März 2016 02:18
>An: dev
Hi Swen,
So you need an extra parameter with name ‘fqdn’. Does that simply also need to
contain the name of the vm or really the FQDN? Because I cannot see a FQDN set
in the vm object and if there is it would most likely be different per nic.
Please let me know.
Regards,
Remi
On 11/03/16 1
Hi Will,
This is the main problem: there’s no one except Apache Infra with access to the
Github CloudStack repo. Even committers have to push to Apache git, which is
mirrored to Github. We can’t close a PR, set a label, change a title or
whatever basic operation. You can ask them for a token. W
Hi Will,
Posting in the comments is the easiest thing to do (and already far better then
e-mailing IMHO), but we’ve seeing the past that these comments are easily
overlooked and ignored. It’s best to have them integrated and registered as an
integration test. That we never got to work (and it w
Hi Will,
We used this to test hundreds of PRs:
https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared/. I can talk you through it
sometime next week or so if you want.
Regards,
Remi
On 01/03/16 21:50, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens"
wrote:
>Thanks Paul. Great to hear you are pl
IntelliJ is cool indeed. What’s even better, is that as an Apache committer you
get a free license ;-)
https://www.jetbrains.com/shop/eform/apache?product=II
Regards,
Remi
On 01/03/16 21:41, "Tutkowski, Mike" wrote:
>Wow, Rohit - IntelliJ is super fast compared to Eclipse and NetBeans
/etc/cloudstack-release
Cloudstack Release 4.6.0 Mon Feb 22 09:33:04 UTC 2016
Regards,
Remi
On 22/02/16 12:23, "Erik Weber" wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Remi Bergsma
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> The version might not change, but Jen
Hi Erik,
The version might not change, but Jenkins builds new ones every night with
latest OS patches:
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-systemvm64-master/
Option 1) and 3) will work once we allow more space on the systemvm template
for it to actually handle installing stuff. You then al
Hi Daan,
Did you try the api call instead of the UI? I believe the UI has a bug (it
filters the private key and it doesn't appear in the db). API call worked for
me.
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 Feb 2016, at 18:52, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> forgot to mention: version 4.7.1 I d
> On Feb 5, 2016, at 3:08 AM, John Kinsella wrote:
>>
>> Did the announcements for 4.7/4.8 go out? I don’t see them on the mailing
>> lists or elsewhere?
>>
>
>
>I don’t think it went out, nor do I think there were RN for them or an update
>to the
Hi Andrija,
If you add to the export of both the old and the new server the option ‘fsid=0’
(or any other id), then you can change the mount to another server without
issues and the OPS recognises this as the same mount. Otherwise, in my
experience, it will not work and result in stale NFS hand
Hi Wido,
Could you please look at the CentOS 7 slave?
http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/view/All/job/cloudstack.apt-get.eu-centos7/6/console
It failes signing the RPMs.
rpm: /usr/bin/rpmsign: No such file or directory
Thanks,
Remi
On 30/01/16 16:15, "Remi Bergsma" wrote:
&g
Thanks Wido!
I’ll have a look and start builds for 4.7.1 and 4.8.0 as they’ve been released
and the tags have been pushed.
Regards,
Remi
On 30/01/16 14:51, "Wido den Hollander" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I should have probably done this a lot earlier, but hey, it's here now.
>
>At PCextreme I've set u
Please put it in a separate repo. There’s way too much stuff in the cloudstack
repo already, IMHO and we should be splitting out, not adding more :-)
Regards,
Remi
On 29/01/16 08:22, "Erik Weber" wrote:
>I'd love to see this in the cloudstack repository.
>Others might have an easier time g
You can use the 4.6 version in 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8.
On 29/01/16 13:24, "mvs babu" wrote:
>Hi Remi,
>
>Thanks for suggestion, sure we will test with 4.7. But, there is no System VM
>Template available for 4.7.
>
>
>Thank you,
>Suneel Mallela
>
>AxiomIO.
&
Hi Suneel,
If you want to upgrade, use 4.7.1 instead of 4.6.x as many bugs have been
fixed. In another thread we discussed a timeout setting you can bump to make it
work, too.
Regards,
Remi
On 29/01/16 12:17, "mvs babu" wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Getting same issue (http://picpaste.com/pics/VPC-r
this email, you must neither take any action based upon
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you
believe you have received this email in error.
On 27-Jan-2016, at 10:02 PM, Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>> wrote:
We should keep the si
arat.
On 28-Jan-2016, at 2:52 AM, Wido den Hollander
mailto:w...@widodh.nl><mailto:w...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
On 01/27/2016 10:02 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
Hi all,
We should keep the simple approach that was used until now: one LGTM based on
code review and one LGTM based on integra
gt;>> improvements over 4.6.x and I'm quite sure it fixes the problem you
>>>>>>>> experience now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards, Remi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPho
gt;
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 Jan 2016, at 16:29, Daniel Mezentsev wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in my configuration VR is acting as DHCP/DNS server, so it's not
>>>
e VR script is acting badly.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If I disassociated 10 public IPs and keep 10 public IPs (but keep 20
>>>
>>> vms
>>>>>> associated with the network), the network (virtual router) restart
>>>>>> with
>>&
This won’t fly, you will get no hook approved.
Instead, simply poll the Github API every x minutes for new PRs and then start
your test.
Regards,
Remi
On 27/01/16 21:59, "Rafael Weingärtner" wrote:
>Because that would require manual work (reporting back the results), maybe
>if we figure ou
Hi all,
We should keep the simple approach that was used until now: one LGTM based on
code review and one LGTM based on integration tests (that’s not the same as
2xLGTM).
If we care about master stability, every change has to be tested for
regression. Period. Things may look OK, but still brea
I say we keep the notifications. GitHub is about development and this is the
dev list, right? It really helps keeping track of what is going on. It's way
faster than clicking all PRs in GitHub IMHO.
Any email client since the 1990s can do mail filtering so if it's too much,
simply filter it to
Hi all,
After picking up the RM role last summer, I've had an interesting ride with
awesome results. First the release principles [1], then stabilizing master and
finally 3 releases in a row: 4.6 in November, 4.7 in December and 4.8 in
January (and as a bonus 3 more patch releases in between).
Hi all,
Following the release of ACS 4.8.0, master is now on version 4.9.0. I tested
several upgrades and that works fine.
If you have a bug fix, please point your pull request to the 4.7 branch and it
will be merged to 4.8 and master as well after initial merge.
New features will land in mast
Hi all,
After 72+ hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.8.0 [1] *passes* with 5 PMC + 1
non-PMC votes.
+1 (PMC / binding)
* Daan
* Milamber
* Remi
* Boris
* Nux
+1 (non binding)
* Glenn
0
Suresh Sadhu
-1
none
Thanks to everyone participating.
I will now prepare the release announcement to go out
Hi all,
After 72+ hours, the vote for CloudStack 4.7.1 [1] *passes* with 4 PMC + 0
non-PMC votes.
+1 (PMC / binding)
* Boris
* Remi
* Daan
* Milamber
+1 (non binding)
none
0
none
-1
Tomasz
Thanks to everyone participating.
I will now prepare the release announcement to go out after 24 hours
;>> clean up successfully (around in 3 min).
>>>> I thinks that is a timeout problem (or VR scripts performance)... but
>>>> which timeout parameter?
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/01/2016 09:43, Milamber wrote:
>>>>> Please note, my installation type
ease note, my installation type is Advanced network without security
>>> groups (vlan isolation).
>>>
>>>> On 24/01/2016 06:57, Remi Bergsma wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We have seen this issue sometimes in the VRs from 4.6 and on. There
&
t; Boris Roman Schrijver
>> Mission Critical Engineer
>>
>> +31 20 7506500
>> Boeingavenue 271
>> 1119 PD Schiphol-Rijk
>>
>> <https://www.schubergphilis.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24/01/16 19:58, &qu
er ... === TestName:
test_04_change_service_offerring_vpc | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
Test to destroy the router after creating a VPC ... === TestName:
test_05_destroy_router_after_creating_vpc | Status : SUCCESS ===
ok
--
Ran 41 tests in 7269.824s
Hi,
We have seen this issue sometimes in the VRs from 4.6 and on. There have been
several improvements in the code in 4.7.
Also, setting router.aggregation.command.each.timeout global setting to 15 or
20 also may help (restart mgt server after change).
@Milamber can you test this setting with
|
>| 13 | 4.6.1 | 2015-12-01 00:52:11 | Complete |
>| 14 | 4.7.0 | 2016-01-21 14:16:34 | Complete |
>| 15 | 4.7.1 | 2016-01-21 14:16:34 | Complete |
>++-+-+--+
>
>Hope this help, other then that, so far so good, using xenserver 6.2.0
>S
>./package.sh --distribution centos63
>./package.sh: unrecognized option '--distribution'
>
>This works though:
>./package.sh -d centos63
>
>
>--
>Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
>Nux!
>www.nux.ro
>
>- Original Message --
.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9251
Best Regards
Tom
2016-01-20 23:27 GMT+01:00 Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>>:
> Hi all,
>
> I've created a 4.7.1 release candidate, with the following artifacts
> up for a vote:
>
> Git Branch and Commit SH:
peblue.com>|
> w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 1:34 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject
>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.8.0
>
>Hi Remi,
>
>No sorry I used the wrong email thread I'm reporting it for 4.8.0
>
>Glenn
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com]
>S
ated companies. If you are not the
intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon
its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you
believe you have received this email in error.
-Original Message-
From: Re
ntil Saturday afternoon, right? I am seeing
>reasonably good results so far but I need to find time to test in an
>advanced zone with security groups and zone wide primary storage as we use
>in Leaseweb. (tentative +1)
>
>On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Remi Bergsma
>wrote:
>
>
77s
OK
```
On 20/01/16 23:27, "Remi Bergsma" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I've created a 4.7.1 release candidate, with the following artifacts up for a
>vote:
>
>Git Branch and Commit SH:
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=clou
r and better!
>>
>> Vote: +1 (binding)
>>
>> All integration tests succeeded and deployment on both Xen and KVM went
>> fine. Currently running this release in beta!
>>
>>
>>
>> Boris Roman Schrijver
>> Mission Critical Engineer
>&g
Hi all,
I've created a 4.8.0 release candidate, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=4.8.0-RC20160120T2343
Commit: 62f218b7bd005d201d1c8516180d8e6d6797
Source release (checksums and signa
Hi all,
I've created a 4.7.1 release candidate, with the following artifacts up for a
vote:
Git Branch and Commit SH:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=4.7.1-RC20160120T2318
Commit: 5ea07dc93799f28dd6c268b17514867d92dc53f7
Source release (checksums and signa
Hi Paul,
I just hope you won’t reinvent the wheel ;-) Feel free to use what was build to
test the 500+ PRs that got merged over the last couple of months to build 4.6,
4.7 and 4.8. For results see the comments in all these PRs.
More info:
https://github.com/schubergphilis/MCT-shared
This is
On a certain night when a release had been cut and there was some worry about a
security fix not being included. The root cause was that we cherry-picked that
fix and as a result its commit hash had changed. Hence we couldn’t find it.
I’d recommend using forward merging instead of back porting a
bug fixes
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1289
==> Let's finally fix all the build failures due to FindBugs (since Dec 2?)..
All those build failure mails every day…
Pinging @Abhi to process comments. We also need reviewers.
Regards,
Remi
From: Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schuber
Glad to see some movement today!
If you want to focus, see my e-mail with ~20 PRs I think should have prio to
get in.
Will spend some time tonight to browse through them and merge those that are
ready.
Regards, Remi
Sent from my iPhone
> On 16 Jan 2016, at 11:57, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
Update: we managed to merge 2 PRs only…
Anyone able to help review and test these PRs?
Regards,
Remi
From: Remi Bergsma
mailto:rberg...@schubergphilis.com>>
Date: Sunday 10 January 2016 13:23
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev
Hi Raja,
Jan 12/13/14 should be the same as there were no commits to master after the
11th of January.
I have seen this before, some tests fail without a change. When you run them
again, they might succeed.
Investigating the actual errors/exceptions might show what’s going on.
Regards,
Remi
>Lucian
>
>--
>Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
>Nux!
>www.nux.ro
>
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Remi Bergsma"
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 January, 2016 15:36:52
>> Subject: Re: LTS
>>> once a bug is found and a fix is available.
>>> 4.6.5 will run exactly like it did before the bug was found.
>>>
>>> Bugs that will cause update issues will trigger a new major release.
>>> If the current supported releases are 4.6.2 and 4.7.1 then
process as we release source
on a given git hash. We’d then vote on the same version multiple times.
Technically it works, I deployed 4.7.1-SNAPSHOT several times.
Regards,
Remi
On 11/01/16 16:23, "Rene Moser" wrote:
>Hi Remi
>
>On 01/11/2016 04:16 PM, Remi Bergsma wrote:
Guys,
IMHO we should pick 4.7 instead of 4.6 as it has newer features (like the
Metrics UI and some more stuff). Apart from that 4.7 has had more bug fixes.
These could have been merged to 4.6, but we didn’t always do that. Let’s make
sure we keep doing that for 4.7, also when 4.8 is out. Apart
Hi all,
Below is a list of the PRs I'd like to suggest for our upcoming 4.7.1/4.8.0
releases. Please help review and test these. Lots of them already had some form
of tesing/review so with little effort we might be able to get them in on time.
The new features listed probably take a lot more ti
Hi,
What happened to the Jenkins test on PRs? It seems PR 1287 was the last one to
have both Travis CI and Jenkins. Since then, it’s only Travis CI.
Why was it removed? (did I miss the mail?).
Regards,
Remi
Hi Wido,
FYI: I run two 4.7 clouds and both have the AUTO_INCREMENT set properly.
Regards,
Remi
On 08/01/16 14:31, "Wido den Hollander" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I've been investigating a issue with a freshly installed 4.7 CloudStack
>setup and I was wondering if somebody else has seen this.
>
>The ta
Heaven is closer than you might think.
4.7 did not require a systemvm template change, so we reused the existing one.
No impact in upgrading. We need to change it only when needed, it’s that simple.
A separate project and version is probably best way forward.
Regards,
Remi
On 07/01/16 15:
We released:
4.6.0
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.7.0
(4.7.1)
(4.8.0)
We _do_ release minor releases, and every month one with new features.
To be clear:
Any branch (be it 4.5, 4.6, 4.7) can have as many minor releases as people
want, until the end of time. Just step up and release it.
Regards,
Remi
>We a
Hi René, all,
I simply don’t understand why you need lots and lots of minor versions. I do
understand you need a stable cloud, and that’s exactly what we’re achieving
here.
We changed our way of working from 4.6 on. Before that, it took _a long_ time
to release new versions (be it major, minor
anks
>
>Andrei
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Remi Bergsma"
>> To: "dev"
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 January, 2016 05:49:05
>> Subject: Re: upgrading 4.5.2 -> 4.6.0 virtualrouter upgrade timeout
>
>> Hi Andrei,
>>
>> Did you try
increasing the
> router.aggregation.command.each.timeout didn't help. I've tried setting the
> value to 120 at no avail. Still fails with the same error.
>
> Andrei
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Remi Bergsma"
>> To: "dev"
>>
1 - 100 of 358 matches
Mail list logo
