OK, I would just go ahead and merge it.
--Sheng
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Hiroaki KAWAI ka...@stratosphere.co.jpwrote:
+1
I'm sorry that I could not make time to respond.
I'll catch up after the merge.
(2013/05/17 3:57), Chip Childers wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:55:30PM
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review20797
---
Commit 7260e8d83f07d90b48c34adaeb227de265019487 in branch
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review20799
---
Ship it!
Shipped. PVLAN migration support shipped with it.
- Sheng
Hi Hiroaki,
Ping again.
I've got a patch(pvlan migration support for xen/kvm) based on your patch
here. I was assuming it would be soon for you to submit/merge the patch,
but it has been one month since last update. And now the lacking of your
patch blocked my fix...
Could you tell what's
Sheng, I'd suggest that you go ahead and merge the patch.
On 5/16/13 11:20 AM, Sheng Yang sh...@yasker.org wrote:
Hi Hiroaki,
Ping again.
I've got a patch(pvlan migration support for xen/kvm) based on your patch
here. I was assuming it would be soon for you to submit/merge the patch,
but it
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:55:30PM +, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Sheng, I'd suggest that you go ahead and merge the patch.
+1
Hi Hiroaki,
Any update?
--Sheng
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Sheng Yang sh...@yasker.org wrote:
Hi Hiroaki,
Any update on the patch? I am planning to use it on PVLAN VM migration
support.
--Sheng
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Hiroaki Kawai
ka...@stratosphere.co.jpwrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review19414
---
Looks good. Is this the final?
- Chiradeep Vittal
On April 11,
On April 18, 2013, 10:45 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Looks good. Is this the final?
Yes. :-)
Ready to ship? Any comments from anybody else?
- Hiroaki
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
On April 18, 2013, 10:45 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Looks good. Is this the final?
Hiroaki Kawai wrote:
Yes. :-)
Ready to ship? Any comments from anybody else?
Any tests?
- Chiradeep
---
This is an
On April 18, 2013, 10:45 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Looks good. Is this the final?
Hiroaki Kawai wrote:
Yes. :-)
Ready to ship? Any comments from anybody else?
Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Any tests?
Tested functional with our private plugin, which will be public.
On April 18, 2013, 10:45 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Looks good. Is this the final?
Hiroaki Kawai wrote:
Yes. :-)
Ready to ship? Any comments from anybody else?
Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Any tests?
Hiroaki Kawai wrote:
Tested functional with our private
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/
---
(Updated April 11, 2013, 7:22 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Hugo
Understood. However it is hard to hold an interface steady in such an
early project.
I hope there are not too many of these non-public implementations (at
least, I have not heard of any).
On 4/1/13 7:22 PM, Hiroaki KAWAI ka...@stratosphere.co.jp wrote:
If we spread a new implementation all over
On March 29, 2013, 8 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
I do think an explicit migration interface on NetworkElement is the right
way to do it. This way, network elements can decide explicitly when and how
to handle this state.
Sprinkling
Yes, please. If you add a no-op implementation for all the existing
network elements then there is no impact.
On 4/1/13 12:28 AM, Hiroaki Kawai ka...@stratosphere.co.jp wrote:
On March 29, 2013, 8 p.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
I do think an explicit migration interface on NetworkElement is
If we spread a new implementation all over the network elements,
then we might silently break third party network elements that
is not included in apache repository. IMHO, that's the impact.
(2013/04/02 5:30), Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Yes, please. If you add a no-op implementation for all the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/#review18531
---
I do think an explicit migration interface on NetworkElement is the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/9871/
---
(Updated March 28, 2013, 9:10 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack, Hugo
On March 20, 2013, 1:51 a.m., Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
Kawai-san, it looks OK since most NetworkElement::release do not do
anything, but if you look at the other plugins (e.g., NiciraNvp), they
destroy the logical port on the NVP switch when release is called. Perhaps
we need a new
20 matches
Mail list logo
