On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
>
>
>> On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Eyal Edri"
>>> To: "Vojtech Szocs"
>>> Cc: "Barak Korren" , "devel" , "board"
>>> , "Michal Skrivanek"
>>>
>>> Sent: Monday, Novem
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 21:09, Eyal Edri wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michal Skrivanek
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> >> From: "Eyal Edri"
>> >> To: "Vojtech Szocs"
>> >> Cc: "Bara
Not sure who touched that, but since it's a NPE - Tal, can you doublecheck
please?
Begin forwarded message:
> From: scan-ad...@coverity.com
> Date: 21 November 2016 at 21:13:22 GMT+1
> To: mskri...@redhat.com
> Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ovirt-engine
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Ple
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Michal Skrivanek
wrote:
>
>
> > On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Eyal Edri"
> >> To: "Vojtech Szocs"
> >> Cc: "Barak Korren" , "devel" ,
> "board" , "Michal Skrivanek"
> >>
> >> Sent: Monda
> On 21 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Eyal Edri"
>> To: "Vojtech Szocs"
>> Cc: "Barak Korren" , "devel" , "board"
>> , "Michal Skrivanek"
>>
>> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:23:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote
- Original Message -
> From: "Eyal Edri"
> To: "Vojtech Szocs"
> Cc: "Barak Korren" , "devel" , "board"
> , "Michal Skrivanek"
>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:23:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote] moVirt as a Full oVirt Project
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:17 P
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Barak Korren"
> > To: "Brian Proffitt"
> > Cc: "Michal Skrivanek" , bo...@ovirt.org, "devel" <
> devel@ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:01:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Ca
+1 here. It would be a great addition in order to use oVirt for testing
without users writing their own API scripts.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Vojtech Szocs wrote:
> +1
>
> I agree with Barak's point. Plus it would make people (who use Vagrant)
> aware of oVirt.
>
> Vojtech
>
>
> - O
- Original Message -
> From: "Barak Korren"
> To: "Brian Proffitt"
> Cc: "Michal Skrivanek" , bo...@ovirt.org, "devel"
>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:01:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for Vote] moVirt as a Full oVirt Project
>
> -1
> Not because of anything with the
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
> -1
> Not because of anything with the project itself - I think it is
> genuinely awesome, but because I expect a project that emerges out of
> the incubation process to "look" like an oVirt project, by which I
> mean:
> 1. Have the code in th
-1
Not because of anything with the project itself - I think it is
genuinely awesome, but because I expect a project that emerges out of
the incubation process to "look" like an oVirt project, by which I
mean:
1. Have the code in the oVirt Gerrit
2. Have tests and builds running on oVirt's CI syste
+1, I use it often.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Sphoorti Joglekar <
sphoorti.jogle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> The project has made tremendous progress.
> On Nov 21, 2016 12:21, "Martin Betak" wrote:
>
>> +1 Albeit obviously biased :-), I think given the continuously growing
>> user base a
+1
I agree with Barak's point. Plus it would make people (who use Vagrant) aware
of oVirt.
Vojtech
- Original Message -
> From: "Barak Korren"
> To: "Sandro Bonazzola"
> Cc: bo...@ovirt.org, "devel"
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 6:12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] [Call for
+1
The project has made tremendous progress.
On Nov 21, 2016 12:21, "Martin Betak" wrote:
> +1 Albeit obviously biased :-), I think given the continuously growing
> user base and stability, it is well deserved.
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Brian Proffitt"
> > To: "devel" , bo...@o
Big +1 on my end.
Thanks for the contribution!
Oved
On Nov 21, 2016 6:55 PM, "Brian Proffitt" wrote:
> All:
>
> This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
> reviewed for major issues and having heard no objections, it's now time to
> formally vote on accepting this as
+1 here for the same reason!
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Barak Korren wrote:
> +1
> I think oVirt had been missing from the list of Vagrant providers for too
> long.
>
> On 21 November 2016 at 19:09, Sandro Bonazzola
> wrote:
>
>> Il 21/Nov/2016 17:55, "Brian Proffitt" ha scritto:
>> >
>
+1 Albeit obviously biased :-), I think given the continuously growing user
base and stability, it is well deserved.
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Proffitt"
> To: "devel" , bo...@ovirt.org
> Cc: "Michal Skrivanek"
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 6:07:11 PM
> Subject: [ovirt-deve
+1
I think oVirt had been missing from the list of Vagrant providers for too
long.
On 21 November 2016 at 19:09, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> Il 21/Nov/2016 17:55, "Brian Proffitt" ha scritto:
> >
> > All:
> >
> > This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
> reviewed for
Il 21/Nov/2016 18:07, "Brian Proffitt" ha scritto:
>
> All:
>
> The moVirt Project was initially accepted as an oVirt incubator project
in February 2015. It has been a successful subproject for quite some time
and it is well due for being accepted as a full oVirt project. I believe it
is appropria
+1
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Brian Proffitt wrote:
> All:
>
> This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
> reviewed for major issues and having heard no objections, it's now time to
> formally vote on accepting this as an official oVirt incubator subproject.
>
>
+1
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Brian Proffitt wrote:
> All:
>
> The moVirt Project was initially accepted as an oVirt incubator project in
> February 2015. It has been a successful subproject for quite some time and
> it is well due for being accepted as a full oVirt project. I believe it
+1
I was looking for a declarative way to create VMs. This will make it
even more compatible with what I have.
--
Martin Sivak
SLA / oVirt
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Brian Proffitt wrote:
> All:
>
> This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
> reviewed for major
+1
--
Martin Sivak
SLA / oVirt
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 6:07 PM, Brian Proffitt wrote:
> All:
>
> The moVirt Project was initially accepted as an oVirt incubator project in
> February 2015. It has been a successful subproject for quite some time and
> it is well due for being accepted as a full o
Il 21/Nov/2016 17:55, "Brian Proffitt" ha scritto:
>
> All:
>
> This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
reviewed for major issues and having heard no objections, it's now time to
formally vote on accepting this as an official oVirt incubator subproject.
>
> The last t
All:
The moVirt Project was initially accepted as an oVirt incubator project in
February 2015. It has been a successful subproject for quite some time and
it is well due for being accepted as a full oVirt project. I believe it is
appropriate to post a Call for Vote on the Devel and Board lists.
h
All:
This project was initially proposed for review on Oct. 9. It has been
reviewed for major issues and having heard no objections, it's now time to
formally vote on accepting this as an official oVirt incubator subproject.
The last time we voted on one of these was during an IRC weekly meeting,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sandro Bonazzola
wrote:
> Fyi oVirt developers,
>
> An oVirt build is planned for this Tuesday 10:00 AM TLV time (9:00 AM CET).
>
Sorry, planned for this Wednesday, same time.
> Taking into consideration the time it takes for Jenkins to run a full CI
> everyth
Fyi oVirt developers,
An oVirt build is planned for this Tuesday 10:00 AM TLV time (9:00 AM CET).
Taking into consideration the time it takes for Jenkins to run a full CI
everything need to be backported by Monday 11PM.
Please make sure to mark as verified and CR +2 so it will be ready for
merging
All stable branch maintainers, please make sure to
merge all relevant open bugs until Wednesday morning 10:00 AM TLV time
(9:00 AM CET).
For each package that need to be built (i.e oVirt product) please make sure
every bug in MODIFIED has the right Target Release and Target Milestone.
A Target rel
Well it is only partially off topic, because it is impossible to merge
a db script close to release. A file rename means new CI job and that
can take ages (especially for the engine and the multiple branches we
have). The same what Martin is describing for the engine with FF only
setup.
Gating doe
On 21 November 2016 at 13:51, Martin Sivak wrote:
> Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
>
Well, automated systems are not supposed to make code changes without
humans being aware (see other thread about "ff-only" where "rebase if
necessary" is a counter-example).
What we
>
> I enjoyed the freedom of cherry-pick, but after 2 broken nightly builds
> in the span of 10 days, I give up. Let's try ff-only.
>
All right, changed.
--
Barak Korren
bkor...@redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
http://list
Off topic I think.., but wasn't there a Gerrit plugin Roy wrote for it?
On Nov 21, 2016 13:51, "Martin Sivak" wrote:
> Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
>
> Martin
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
> > This isn't gating.
> > Just trigger to run
Will it also auto-rename the database scripts? Please please!
Martin
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Eyal Edri wrote:
> This isn't gating.
> Just trigger to run more heavy lifting CI jobs, the idea is to replace the
> manual submit with automatic system like Zuul.
>
>
> On Nov 21, 2016 1:32 P
This isn't gating.
Just trigger to run more heavy lifting CI jobs, the idea is to replace the
manual submit with automatic system like Zuul.
On Nov 21, 2016 1:32 PM, "Tal Nisan" wrote:
> Why not use +1 on verified? That way the patch owner can wait till the
> code review process is over, mark i
Why not use +1 on verified? That way the patch owner can wait till the code
review process is over, mark it as verified, wait for CI and then submit.
It doesn't really give much added value to the code reviewers whether it's
marked as verified or not
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Sandro Bonazz
Hi,
I'm running into problems with blockcommit and gluster network disks -
wanted to check how to pass path for network disks. How's the protocol and
host parameters specified?
For a backing volume chain as below, executing
virsh blockcommit fioo5
vmstore/912d9062-3881-479b-a6e5-7b074a252cb6/imag
37 matches
Mail list logo
