m: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:20 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>>
>> Ilya,
>>
>> Thanks! The current problem on this branch is we
ozen and only applying bug
> fixes once BVT found problems.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net]
> > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:16 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VM
gt;
>--Alex
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:34 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 27
--Original Message-
> From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net]
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 10:16 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Alex,
>
> I completely understand. Please keep us in the lo
.
Thanks
ilya
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 9:16 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Given the current state of BVT, I don&#x
annot conscientiously push it in
under the current circumstances.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Sudha Ponnaganti [mailto:sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 7:11 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvemen
: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
I agree with John that a change like this is very hard to test in an automated
fashion. Still i have been looking at the numbers for the code coverage with
cobertura. I was a bit disappointed to find that we have not made any progress
with
> > On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:35 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> >>
> >> So the problem in my mind, is that we don't have a way of verifying
> >> that master isn't broken, and won't be broken by any given merge. I
> >> look at even the minimal level of automated testing that I see today,
> >> and ~20% of i
> -Original Message-
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 12:55 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Ilya,
>
> I understand your concern. Howev
+1
I will also contribute and will test this feature thoroughly.
Regards
Sadhu
-Original Message-
From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 1:47 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
John
I agree with John that a change like this is very hard to test in an automated
fashion. Still i have been looking at the numbers for the code coverage with
cobertura. I was a bit disappointed to find that we have not made any progress
with this merge with regards to unit tests and total code cov
@David The types of concurrency changes introduced in this patch are
extremely difficult to completely test in an automated fashion.
Therefore, code review for correctness is critical to ensure quality.
To be clear, I am not questioning the value of automated testing. I
am just noting that it's ne
It is much appreciated.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:33 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Hugo,
>
> I comple
e [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo Trippaers
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:27 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Let's get it done :-)
>
>
> I'm at about 15% of the entire comm
June 27, 2013 4:34 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
> >
> > I think Ilya offers is great, my current stance is also to see how we can
>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
>
> I think Ilya offers is great, my current stance is also to see how we can
> bring this forward.
>
> I've had the opportunity to meet with several people at the Citrix office in
> Santa Clara, i'm actually working from their office at thi
s with his -1 vote :)
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Trippie [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo Trippaers
>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:51 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into
put us back at least 8+ months away until 4.3 comes out.
> >>
> >> If needed, I can dedicate QA cycles and work with Kelven to rule out all
> the bugs and issues - through as many scenarios as possible on my end.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> ilya
>
ya
>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:33 PM
>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>>&
bugs and issues - through as many scenarios as possible on my end.
>
> Thanks
> ilya
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:33 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: R
From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:33 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
> Hugo,
>
> I completely agree with this stance, and will add a -1 as well. It has been a
&g
change. For vmsync changes itself, the changes are centered around
>> VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java so you can review that file instead.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> --Alex
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.
und
> VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java so you can review that file instead.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Alex
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:38 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
&g
itrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:38 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
>
>
>
> On 6/17/13 7:43 PM, "Mice Xia" wrote:
>
> >Kelven,
> >
> >After the refactoring, will
cheduleRestart() is not
>called when VM's actual state is stopped while expected state is running.
>
>
>Regards
>Mice
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:21 AM
>To: dev@cloudstack.apach
while expected state is running.
Regards
Mice
-Original Message-
From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:21 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge VMSync improvement branch into master
Haven't created a patch yet, will
Haven't created a patch yet, will do it soon after some last wrap-ups.
Kelven
On 6/17/13 12:03 PM, "John Burwell" wrote:
>Kelven,
>
>Did this patch get pushed to Review Board? If so, what is the URL?
>
>Thanks.
>-John
>
>On Jun 17, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Kelven Yang wrote:
>
>> Low level classes w
Kelven,
Did this patch get pushed to Review Board? If so, what is the URL?
Thanks.
-John
On Jun 17, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Kelven Yang wrote:
> Low level classes were tested in unit tests(MessageBus, Job framework, Job
> dispatchers etc), interface layer changes are guarded through matching the
>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:40:36PM +, Kelven Yang wrote:
> Low level classes were tested in unit tests(MessageBus, Job framework, Job
> dispatchers etc), interface layer changes are guarded through matching the
> old semantics, but changes are tested manually, we are planning to get
> this part
Low level classes were tested in unit tests(MessageBus, Job framework, Job
dispatchers etc), interface layer changes are guarded through matching the
old semantics, but changes are tested manually, we are planning to get
this part of testing through BVT system after we have re-based the latest
mast
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 04:59:00PM +, Kelven Yang wrote:
> I'd like to kick off the official merge process. We will start the merge
> process after the branch has passed necessary tests
>
> Kelven
Can you share what testing is being run against the branch?
31 matches
Mail list logo
