---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
Review request for cloudstack.
Repository: cloudstack-git
Description
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review35757
---
plugins/network-elements/juniper-contrail/src/org/apache/cloudstack
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated March 1, 2014, 10:02 p.m.)
Review request for cloudstack.
Changes
--
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated March 4, 2014, 10:10 p.m.)
Review request for cloudstack.
Changes
--
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated March 4, 2014, 10:11 p.m.)
Review request for cloudstack.
Changes
--
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated March 12, 2014, 6:19 p.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and Alena Pro
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review37581
---
1) Why you've decided to introduce a new provider for the Internal L
> On March 18, 2014, 6:19 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > 1) Why you've decided to introduce a new provider for the Internal LB? What
> > different does it make from the class its extending? I can't find anything
> > different, neither in capabilities terms, nor in other behavior. Why your
> On March 18, 2014, 6:19 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > 1) Why you've decided to introduce a new provider for the Internal LB? What
> > different does it make from the class its extending? I can't find anything
> > different, neither in capabilities terms, nor in other behavior. Why your
> On March 18, 2014, 6:19 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > 1) Why you've decided to introduce a new provider for the Internal LB? What
> > different does it make from the class its extending? I can't find anything
> > different, neither in capabilities terms, nor in other behavior. Why your
> On March 18, 2014, 6:19 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > 1) Why you've decided to introduce a new provider for the Internal LB? What
> > different does it make from the class its extending? I can't find anything
> > different, neither in capabilities terms, nor in other behavior. Why your
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated March 27, 2014, 12:42 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and Alena Pr
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review38754
---
Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with c
> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with c
> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with c
> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with c
> On March 27, 2014, 5:02 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Suresh, your fix contradicts with whatever you said in your previous
> > comment. You said that your contrail element will play the role of the
> > internal load Balancer. In that case, you should have added the Service LB
> > with c
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review39594
---
Suresh, the patch fails to apply on the latest 4.4 branch, can you p
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated April 4, 2014, 10:27 p.m.)
Review request for cloudstack and Alena Pro
> On April 4, 2014, 10:45 p.m., Alena Prokharchyk wrote:
> > Ship It!
Fixed in 4.4 and master branches
- Alena
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review39608
-
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/#review39608
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Alena Prokharchyk
On April 4, 2014, 10:27 p.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18552/
---
(Updated Feb. 27, 2014, 12:56 a.m.)
Review request for cloudstack.
Changes
--
23 matches
Mail list logo
