ul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
> Sent: 28 June 2017 07:45
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
eblue
-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 June 2017 07:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Paul,
Which shows we are not actively following RCs. That PR was a
blocker for RC3 and was well discussed. That PR
http://www.shapeblue.com )
( http://www.shapeblue.com )
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
-Original Message-
From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re:
@shapeblue
-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 June 2017 07:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
Paul,
Which shows we are not actively following RCs. That PR was a blocker for RC3
and was well discussed
t;> going. If 4.10 had gone out in a timely fashion, then we'd
>> probably be on
>> 4.11 if not 4.12 by now, with all the new features AND all the
>> new fixes in.
>>
>> People sliding new changes/bug fixes/enhancements in are not
>> making the
>> produ
uturi [mailto:raj...@apache.org]
Sent: 28 June 2017 06:14
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
We can do a release every month as long as we have enough people
actively participating in the release process.
We have people who wants to have their code/features ch
apeblue.com ( http://www.shapeblue.com )
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Wido den Ho
sage-
From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the
past is that overall c
to:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve
discussed
in the past is that overall community participation in the RC
proce
lace, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Tutkowski, Mike [mailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
>> Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Wido den Holl
ailto:mike.tutkow...@netapp.com]
> Sent: 27 June 2017 01:25
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Wido den Hollander
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
>
> I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed
> in the past is that overall commun
dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: Wido den Hollander
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.10.0.0 RC3
I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the
past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off
when such a new branch is created
I tend to agree with you here, Daan. I know the downside we’ve discussed in the
past is that overall community participation in the RC process has dropped off
when such a new branch is created (since the community as a whole tends to
focus more on the new branch rather than on testing the RC and
FYI: I located what was going on with VMware + managed storage. It looks like
there was a feature that went in (at some point…not sure when) that added the
ability to resize a root disk (so it doesn’t have to be the same size as the
template it uses) when spinning up a VM. That code triggered an
this is why i say we should branch on first RC, fix in release branch
only and merge forward
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not
> blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in
I know it is hard to justify not merging PRs that seem ready but are not
blockers in an RC, but it is a vicious circle which ultimately results in a
longer RC process.
It is something i struggled with as a release manager as well.
On Jun 13, 2017 1:56 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" wrote:
Thanks Mike,
Thanks Mike,
Will hold off next RC until we hear an update from you.
Regarding merging non-blockers, unfortunately, its a side-effect
of taking more than three months in the RC phase :(
Thanks,
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.accelerite.com/
On June 13, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Tutkowski, Mike
(mike.t
Hi everyone,
I had a little time this evening and re-ran some VMware-related tests around
managed storage. I noticed a problem that I’d like to investigate before we
spin up the next RC. Let’s hold off on the next RC until I can find out more (I
should know more within 24 hours).
Thanks!
Mike
> Op 10 juni 2017 om 21:18 schreef "Tutkowski, Mike"
> :
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I opened a PR against the most recent RC:
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141
>
> I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted
> in detail in the PR).
>
> If someone wants to
Hi,
I opened a PR against the most recent RC:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2141
I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted
in detail in the PR).
If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from it, I’m +1 on the
new RC as long as this
Hi everyone,
I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC since the most recent
RC, so I am -1 on this RC.
The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume snapshots on
primary storage (which is a feature managed storage can support):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/br
Hi Rajani,
I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing (both automated and
manual) done today. If not, we’ll need to see if someone else can complete it
before we OK this RC as I won’t be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll
report back later today.
Thanks,
Mike
On 6/9/17
Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created
from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a git
pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong.
Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and cancelling
this.
~ Rajani
http://cloudplatform.acceler
Hi Rajani,
I don’t see the following PR in this RC:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2098
I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all passed with the
exception of the one that led to PR 2098.
As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of ed2f573, but I
th
24 matches
Mail list logo
