Hi All,
I've created a 4.0.2 release, 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=refs/heads/4.0
Commit: aa5081e1746c33eba6b3257602996e2aaa01ba0b
List of changes:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/a
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:53 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.0.2
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.0.2 release, with the following art
+1
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <
animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:j...@zonker.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 10:53 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
&
April 16, 2013 10:53 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.0.2
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've created a 4.0.2 release, with the following artifacts up for a
>> vote:
>>
>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>
Hi Joe,
Is this patch included in 4.0.2?
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=5ac59fbecbae069ab46048e9a73a6f7b8fb2d4b1
Kind regards,
Wei
2013/4/16 Joe Brockmeier
> Hi All,
>
> I've created a 4.0.2 release, with the following artifacts up for a
> vote:
>
> Git Br
Wei - it is.
It was committed almost a month ago into the 4.0 branch.
--David
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Is this patch included in 4.0.2?
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=5ac59fbecbae069ab46048e9a73a6f7b8fb2d4b1
>
> Kind re
Thanks, David.
It is not in the list of changes.
2013/4/16 David Nalley
> Wei - it is.
> It was committed almost a month ago into the 4.0 branch.
>
> --David
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > Is this patch included in 4.0.2?
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apach
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013, at 03:40 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
> Thanks, David.
> It is not in the list of changes.
Sorry about that. I pulled the changes from Jira and it had no "fix
versions" tagged, so it didn't show up in the list of things that were
committed to 4.0.2. I've edited the Jira ticket to show
I've actually got a patch that *I believe* goes along with a previous
bugfix that is in 4.0.2 already, I'm trying to determine that and test
right now. I should be able to let you know within an hour or two whether
or not I think it should be applied.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Joe Brockmei
Alright, I've tested and verified that the patch/issue does NOT apply to
4.0 branch. I'll give this build a +1 (binding)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I've actually got a patch that *I believe* goes along with a previous
> bugfix that is in 4.0.2 already, I'm trying t
hi,
in the CHANGES file, issue 528 seems fixed:
Issues fixed in this release:
[...]
* CLOUDSTACK-528: Failed to create secondary storage
But according to Jira
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-528), this issue is
still open. Jira is outdated ?
Le 16/04/2013 19:52, Joe Brockm
On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013, at 03:40 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>> Thanks, David.
>> It is not in the list of changes.
>
> Sorry about that. I pulled the changes from Jira and it had no "fix
> versions" tagged, so it didn't show up in the list of things t
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:20:16AM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013, at 03:40 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
> >> Thanks, David.
> >> It is not in the list of changes.
> >
> > Sorry about that. I pulled the changes from Jira
On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:20:16AM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013, at 03:40 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
Thanks, David.
It is not in the list of changes.
On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Chip Childers wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:20:16AM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013, at 03:40 PM, Wei Z
Hello,
I'm -1 on the 4.0.2 release due to the issue
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-528
our upgrade from version 2.2.13 to 4.0.x is blocked due this issue
Regards.
Le 16/04/2013 19:52, Joe Brockmeier a écrit :
Hi All,
I've created a 4.0.2 release, with the following artifacts
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 08:50 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> Ok solved in 95f87bd96e0db0d061e37245166059d5eb7a073b
>
> But unfortunately I want to raise
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-528 which is a blocker
> for 4.0.2 and yet still open.
>
> Nicolas emailed several times
Hello,
Same as Nicolas, as we work together and it prohibits us from
upgrading our production platform : I also vote -1 on the 4.0.2
release due to the issue
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-528
Kind regards,
Guillaume
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:06 PM, wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm -1
Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
time-based bug fix release from going out just because it doesn't fix every
bug we know of, only if it introduces a bug.
On Apr 17, 2013 8:09 AM, "Joe Brockmeier" wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 08:50 AM, Sebastien Goasg
Yes, we have rules. :)
A release will pass if it receives 3 binding +1 votes, and more +1 votes
than -1 votes in total.
On 17 April 2013 15:11, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
> time-based bug fix release from going out just becau
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:11:38AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
> time-based bug fix release from going out just because it doesn't fix every
> bug we know of, only if it introduces a bug.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 09:11 AM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
> time-based bug fix release from going out just because it doesn't fix
> every bug we know of, only if it introduces a bug.
We don't have any hard and fast rules. It'
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 09:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 09:11 AM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> > Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
> > time-based bug fix release from going out just because it doesn't fix
> > every bug we know of, only if
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 04:10:50PM +0200, Fraysse Guillaume wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Same as Nicolas, as we work together and it prohibits us from
> upgrading our production platform : I also vote -1 on the 4.0.2
> release due to the issue
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-528
>
>
>
OK, so the answer is no, we just decide as we go...
On Apr 17, 2013 8:15 AM, "Chip Childers" wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 08:11:38AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> > Do we have rules set out around this? It seems that we wouldn't stop a
> > time-based bug fix release from going out just beca
It's a little more nuanced than that. ;) It's very possible that we would
ship a new release that actually introduces known bugs. It is much less
likely that we would ship a release that introduces known critical bugs. In
the end, it is up to the community to decide. And that is a process of a
rele
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013, at 08:20 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> It does not seem to pass the rat test from the testing procedure:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+4.0+test+procedure
Based on this - I'm canceling the vote. Thanks to Sebastien for catching
this.
I
27 matches
Mail list logo
