lgtm :+1: thanks for this cleanup
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/65#issuecomment-60490322
>
> public class DiskCreationBinder extends BindToJsonPayload {
>
> - @Inject
> - public DiskCreationBinder(Json jsonBinder) {
> + @Inject public DiskCreationBinder(Json jsonBinder) {
Is this style preferable? why?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.c
> -*/
> - @Override
> - public R bindToRequest(R request, Map Object> postParams) {
> - FirewallOptions options = (FirewallOptions)
> checkNotNull(postParams.get("options"), "firewallOptions");
> - String name = (String) checkNotNull(postParams.get("name"), "name");
> - URI
> @@ -14,12 +14,10 @@
> * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> * limitations under the License.
> */
> -package org.jclouds.googlecomputeengine.handlers;
> +package org.jclouds.googlecomputeengine.binders;
does this need to be moved to binders?
---
Reply to
lgtm, very minor comments
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/64#issuecomment-60490501
Interesting approach! I'd like to see it more adopted in jclouds later
+1
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/100#issuecomment-60492666
@adriancole I think it was a very good experience for me, but it had no luck.
Thanks @dralves and Mattias Holmqvist for the great fun
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/99#issuecomment-60602231
> private final List onBuild;
>
> -
> - @ConstructorProperties({ "Hostname", "Domainname", "User", "Memory",
> "MemorySwap", "CpuShares", "AttachStdin",
> + @SerializedNames({ "Hostname", "Domainname", "User", "Memory",
> "MemorySwap", "CpuShares", "AttachStdin",
Docker APIs contain so
Nice! I didn't know that library, which is certainly better than apache-commons.
only concern is about jclouds ยป jclouds-labs #1821 UNSTABLE could your please
re-start the builder?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/106#issuecommen
lgtm, let's keep on with this diet!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/68#issuecomment-61122182
:+1: please merge it and backport it to 1.8.x as well as I want to test it
there as well. Thanks!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/595#issuecomment-61126964
Thanks @danbroudy for helping us close that!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/69#issuecomment-61310875
cc @adriancole could please review it?
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds-labs master
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/109
-- Commit Summary --
* this closes JCLOUD
Thx, do I need to backport it to 1.8.x?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/109#issuecomment-61598179
> */
> @Delegate
> - @Path("/projects/{project}")
@adriancole I think I lean toward option 3
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/80/files#r19845642
I suppose this big refactoring doesn't fit onto 1.8.x, will it be backported to
1.9.x?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/88#issuecomment-62421648
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
> import
> org.jclouds.googlecloudstorage.domain.templates.BucketAccessControlsTemplate;
> import org.jclouds.http.HttpResponse;
> import org.jclouds.javax.annotation.Nullable;
> -import org.jclouds.oauth.v2.filters.OAuthAuthenticationFilter;
> +import org.jclouds.oauth.v2.f
don't have a way to run LiveTests, can you report the result from your tests?
If they are ok, I think the assumptions done to simplify the implementation are
ok for Google's product. If we then want to support OAuth for other providers
will probably need to revisit that again, correct?
---
Repl
I'd like to see the LiveTests result to +1 unless @nacx @ccustine have other
thoughts
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/96#issuecomment-63509637
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds fix/osVersionMapJson
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/611
-- Commit Summary --
* add support for recent centos and ubuntu versions
-
Closed #611.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/611#event-195612117
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds fix/osVersionMapJson
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/612
-- Commit Summary --
* add support for recent centos and ubuntu versions
-
I've cherry-picked into 1.7.x and 1.8.x
thanks @adriancole
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/612#issuecomment-63671647
- update value objects (Container, Config)
- add new value object (Resource, StatusCode)
- add more options for ContainerApi
- add support for pause/unpause, restart, kill, copy and attach APIs + Mock and
Live tests
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreat
> + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> + *
> + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> + * See the L
> return this;
>}
>
> - public Builder networkDisabled(boolean networkDisabled) {
> - this.networkDisabled = networkDisabled;
> + public Builder securityOpts(List securityOpts) {
> + this.securityOpts = ImmutableList.copyOf(checkNotNull(securityOpts,
> "s
> + */
> +package org.jclouds.docker.domain;
> +
> +import org.jclouds.json.SerializedNames;
> +
> +import com.google.auto.value.AutoValue;
> +
> +@AutoValue
> +public abstract class Resource {
> +
> + public abstract String resource();
> +
> + @SerializedNames({ "Resource" })
> + public stat
> + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> + * limitations under the License.
> + */
> +package org.jclouds.docker.options;
> +
> +import org.jclouds.http.options.BaseHttpRequestOptions;
> +
> +public class RestartOptions extends BaseHttpRequestOptions {
> +
> + p
> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ public SSLContext get() {
> kmf.init(keyStore.get(), keyStorePassword.toCharArray());
> SSLContext sc = SSLContext.getInstance("TLS");
> sc.init(kmf.getKeyManagers(), trustManager, new SecureRandom());
> + System.setProperty("https.protocols
@nacx I'd like to have your thoughts, particularly if that was something
similar to your suggestion on IRC
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-64663355
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds fix/sslcontext
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/615
-- Commit Summary --
* inject SSLSocketFactory instead of SSLContext
-- File Cha
Closed #615.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/615#event-199150436
TLSv1 is suggested here
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/cve-2014-3566-2342133.html
and it is not a docker requirement. It is only a simple way to avoid SSLv3
support, which is one of the protocol supported by default by
`SSLContext.getInstance("TLS")`
Anyway, I reve
Thanks @nacx seems like it is just-in-time collaboration: it will be super
useful for docker, I'm sure! Thanks!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/617#issuecomment-64756725
Thanks again @adriancole and @demobox
I've added a couple of comments to explain why Docker requires TLS and how this
PR deals with it (temporarily)
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-64760771
> +* @param containerId The id of the container to be unpaused.
> +*/
> + @Named("container:unpause")
> + @POST
> + @Path("/containers/{id}/unpause")
> + void unpause(@PathParam("id") String containerId);
> +
> + /**
> +* Attach to a container
> +*
> +* @param containe
> +* @param containerId The id of the container to be unpaused.
> +*/
> + @Named("container:unpause")
> + @POST
> + @Path("/containers/{id}/unpause")
> + void unpause(@PathParam("id") String containerId);
> +
> + /**
> +* Attach to a container
> +*
> +* @param containe
> +* @param containerId The id of the container to be unpaused.
> +*/
> + @Named("container:unpause")
> + @POST
> + @Path("/containers/{id}/unpause")
> + void unpause(@PathParam("id") String containerId);
> +
> + /**
> +* Attach to a container
> +*
> +* @param containe
Big +1
Thanks @nacx I'll test it asap with Docker!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/619#issuecomment-65272200
I'll probably be able to close that later this week or during weekend.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-66356676
@nacx tests are green, it is rebased to master but if we are happy with that,
probably best to squash them before merging it.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-66914824
hi @danbroudy I think it is still an issue. Basically the current code creates
too many (identical) firewalls if I deploy multiple VMs in the same network. In
fact, if the I ask for 10 nodes with specific inboundPorts, multiple firewalls
with the same rules are created inside the network for the
> + private static X509Certificate getCertificate(String certificate) {
> + try {
> + return (X509Certificate)
> CertificateFactory.getInstance("X.509").generateCertificate(
> + new
> ByteArrayInputStream(certificate.getBytes(Charsets.UTF_8)));
> + } catch (Cer
> private final TrustManager[] trustManager;
> private final Supplier creds;
>
> @Inject
> - SSLContextWithKeysSupplier(Supplier keyStore, @Provider
> Supplier creds, HttpUtils utils,
> - TrustAllCerts trustAllCerts) {
> - this.keyStore = keyStore;
> - this.trustM
> private final TrustManager[] trustManager;
> private final Supplier creds;
>
> @Inject
> - SSLContextWithKeysSupplier(Supplier keyStore, @Provider
> Supplier creds, HttpUtils utils,
> - TrustAllCerts trustAllCerts) {
> - this.keyStore = keyStore;
> - this.trustM
We want jclouds to provide a sensible default with `NewOkHttpClient` but give
to an advanced user the ability to override completely that behavior using
`OkHttpClientSupplier`
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds fix/okhttp
Or you can vie
Closed #627.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/627#event-208207105
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ public static Attachment create(String hostedService,
> String deployment, String
> @Nullable public abstract String description();
>
> /** The operating system type of the OS image, or null if a data disk. */
> - @Nullable public abstract OSImage.Type os();
> + @
> @@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ public static Attachment create(String hostedService,
> String deployment, String
> */
> @Nullable public abstract String sourceImage();
>
> - public static Disk create(String name, String location, String
> affinityGroup, String description, OSImage.Type os,
> +
> URI mediaLink, Integer logicalSizeInGB, Attachment attachedTo,
> String sourceImage) {
> - return new AutoValue_Disk(name, location, affinityGroup, description,
> os, mediaLink, logicalSizeInGB, attachedTo,
> + return new AutoValue_Disk(name, location, affinityGroup, descrip
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
> public abstract String name();
>
> /** The geo-locations of the image, if the image is not associated with
> an affinity group. */
> - public abstract List locations();
> + @Nullable public abstract String location();
Good spot!
Please make sure that all the f
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ private void checkOSImage(OSImage OSImage) {
> "MediaLink should be an http(s) url" + OSImage);
>}
>
> - assertTrue(locations.containsAll(OSImage.locations()), "Locations not
> in " + locations + " :" + OSImage);
> + // assertTrue(locations.
> @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ public void testList() {
> }
>
> private void checkDisk(Disk disk) {
> - assertNull(disk.name(), "Name cannot be null for: " + disk);
> - assertNull(disk.os(), "OS cannot be null for: " + disk);
> + assertNotNull(disk.name(), "Name cannot be null for: "
> +
> + ImageBuilder builder = new ImageBuilder()
> +.id(image.label())
> +.name(image.name())
> +.description(image.description())
> +.status(Image.Status.AVAILABLE)
> +.uri(image.mediaLink())
> +.providerId(image.publish
Thanks @hsbhathiya for your PR, very good start!
There are some comments from my side, please try to address them and if you
have troubles, feel free to reach out to us on IRC #jclouds.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/117#issue
> + .description(image.description());
> + }
> + return
> OperatingSystem.builder().family(OsFamily.LINUX).version(version).description(image.description());
> + }
> +
> + private Location createLocation(String input) {
> + return new
> LocationBuilder().id(input)
> +.id(image.label())
> +.name(image.name())
> +.description(image.description())
> +.status(Image.Status.AVAILABLE)
> +.uri(image.mediaLink())
> +.providerId(image.publisherName())
> +.location(createLocation(image
> +.status(Image.Status.AVAILABLE)
> +.uri(image.mediaLink())
> +.providerId(image.publisherName())
> +.location(createLocation(image.location()));
> +
> + OperatingSystem.Builder osBuilder = setOperatingSystem(image);
> + return builder.ope
>
> public class OSImageToImage implements Function {
> + private static final String UNRECOGNIZED = "UNRECOGNIZED";
> + private final JustProvider provider;
> +
> + @Inject
> + public OSImageToImage(JustProvider provider) {
not sure we will need this parameter here, as we'd probably us
> + //openSUSE 13.1 -> 13.1
> + if (label.toUpperCase().contains("OPENSUSE"))
> + return label.replace("openSUSE ", "");
> + //SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP3 (Premium Image) ->
> 11 SP3(Premium Image)
> + else if (lab
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ private void checkOSImage(OSImage OSImage) {
> "MediaLink should be an http(s) url" + OSImage);
>}
>
> - assertTrue(locations.containsAll(OSImage.locations()), "Locations not
> in " + locations + " :" + OSImage);
> +assertTrue(locations.co
@nacx Any chance to give your thoughts on that?
FYI I've been also experimenting with the latest boot2docker available which
runs docker 1.4.1 and docker API v1.16 and the code needs only a minor
adjustment for Info class as that version is returning a richer object. Other
than that, the other
As rule of thumb, better to open PR at the time, so we can help you more.
do u really think Role is really needed? If yes, where?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/118#issuecomment-67872617
Also, I know about your roadmap and I'd suggest you to not focus on this
translator during Milestone 1.
In fact, the first thing to do IMO is to finalise the `features` API and all
the `domain` objects managed by those API. Once you get those right, it would
be straightforward to finalise the A
> throw propagate(e);
>}
> }
> +
> + private static X509Certificate getCertificate(String certificate) {
> + try {
> + return (X509Certificate)
> CertificateFactory.getInstance("X.509").generateCertificate(
> + new
> ByteArrayInputStream(certif
> + private static X509Certificate getCertificate(String certificate) {
> + try {
> + return (X509Certificate)
> CertificateFactory.getInstance("X.509").generateCertificate(
> + new
> ByteArrayInputStream(certificate.getBytes(Charsets.UTF_8)));
> + } catch (Cer
@aledsage code looks good to me, but the builder is not happy because of some
[checkstyle
violations](https://jclouds.ci.cloudbees.com/job/jclouds-pull-requests/1475/org.apache.jclouds.provider$aws-ec2/violations/)
+1 to PR against master as well, once you address the violations
---
Reply to t
hi @jdaggett do yo think it is time to merge that?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-site/pull/134#issuecomment-69171874
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ This involves [dockerizing an SSH daemon
> service](https://docs.docker.com/exampl
> // get a context with docker that offers the portable ComputeService api
> ComputeServiceContext context = ContextBuilder.newBuilder("docker")
>.credentials(email, pas
> +api.getVirtualGuestApi();
> +api.getDatacenterApi();
> +api.getSoftwareDescriptionApi();
> +api.getVirtualGuestBlockDeviceTemplateGroupApi();
> +api.getAccountApi();
> +
> +// Be sure to close the context when done
> +computeServiceContext.close();
> +{% endhighlight %}
> +
> +## SoftLayer Objec
@demobox I've addressed your questions. Are we good to merge that now?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-site/pull/122#issuecomment-69715798
@nacx I think I need to rebase and squash so that you can merge it, yes?
Thanks!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-69901231
@nacx I think you are right, better to remove the password as we don't suggest
to use encrypted PEM file
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-69907182
argh! @nacx
Fixing them now
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#issuecomment-69925743
Closed #113.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/113#event-218832236
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds-labs docker-1.4.1
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/120
-- Commit Summary --
* support docker 1.4.1 (API v1.16)
-- File Changes
You can merge this Pull Request by running:
git pull https://github.com/andreaturli/jclouds-labs docker-fix-test
Or you can view, comment on it, or merge it online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/121
-- Commit Summary --
* fix docker unit tests
-- File Changes --
@iocanel lgtm! I've tested and it works great!
thanks!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-cli/pull/25#issuecomment-70151677
Could you please squash those 3 commits into 1, so that I can merge it?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-cli/pull/25#issuecomment-70152193
Merged #25.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-cli/pull/25#event-219672059
> + *
> + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> + * See the License for the specific language governing permission
> + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
> + * limitations under the License.
> + */
> +package org.jclouds.azureco
> import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet;
>
> @Test(groups = "live", testName = "OSImageApiLiveTest")
> public class OSImageApiLiveTest extends BaseAzureComputeApiLiveTest {
>
> - private ImmutableSet locations;
why did you remove this check from the test?
---
Reply to this email
thanks for that @hsbhathiya!
Btw, it is a bit hard to review this PR all together, can you maybe split it
into multiple PRs.
In fact, the code looks ok, but I'd like to have time to look at the official
Azure documentation to see if the Value objects cover the spec correctly. Just
to give you an
> +
> +/**
> + * @see href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx#OSVirtualHardDisk";
> >api
> + */
> +@AutoValue
> +public abstract class OSVirtualHardDisk {
> +
> + /**
> +* Specifies the caching mode of the operating system disk.
> +* This setting impacts the co
> +/**
> + * @see href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx#OSVirtualHardDisk";
> >api
> + */
> +@AutoValue
> +public abstract class OSVirtualHardDisk {
> +
> + /**
> +* Specifies the caching mode of the operating system disk.
> +* This setting impacts the consis
> +* in Windows Azure. If you specify the path to an image with this
> element, an associated VHD is created and
> +* you must use the MediaLink element to specify the location in storage
> where the VHD will be located.
> +* If this element is used, SourceImageName is not used.
> +
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +http://schemas.microsoft.com/windowsazure";>
> +ReadOnly
> +MyTestImage_1
> +testosimage1-testosimage1-0-20120817095145
> +
> http://blobs/disks/neotysss/MSFT__Win2K8R2SP1-ABCD-en-us-30GB.vhd
> +Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS
> +linux
> +30
> +
> http:
@hsbhathiya thanks for splitting the PR, it is now way easier to review!
There are just some comments to get the Value class right, according to the
online doc, at least.
Please revisit the impl, and commit the changes.
Once we'll be happy with the PR, we will squash the commits into just one
c
> + *
> + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
> + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
> + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
> + * See the License for the specific language governing permission
> +
> +/**
> + * @see href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx#OSVirtualHardDisk";
> >api
> + */
> +@AutoValue
> +public abstract class OSVirtualHardDisk {
> +
> + /**
> +* Specifies the caching mode of the operating system disk.
> +* This setting impacts the co
lgtm! thanks @hsbhathiya
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/125#issuecomment-70991125
> +api.getVirtualGuestApi();
> +api.getDatacenterApi();
> +api.getSoftwareDescriptionApi();
> +api.getVirtualGuestBlockDeviceTemplateGroupApi();
> +api.getAccountApi();
> +
> +// Be sure to close the context when done
> +computeServiceContext.close();
> +{% endhighlight %}
> +
> +## SoftLayer Objec
> +* If the disk that is being added is already registered in the
> subscription or the VHD for the disk already exists
> +* in blob storage, this element is ignored. If a VHD file does not exist
> in blob storage, this element defines the
> +* location of the new VHD that is created
> +
> + /**
> +* Required if an existing disk is being used to create a Virtual Machine.
> +* Specifies the name of a new or existing disk
> +*/
> + @Nullable public abstract String diskName();
> +
> + /**
> +* Specifies the Logical Unit Number (LUN) for the data disk. If the
Reverts jclouds/jclouds-labs#125
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/127
-- Commit Summary --
* Revert "JCLOUDS-664: OSVirtualHardDisk Support With Tests"
-- File Changes --
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/jclo
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/653
-- Commit Summary --
* JCLOUDS-813: fix list private images
-- File Changes --
M
providers/softlayer/src/main/java/org/jclouds/softlayer/compute/strategy/SoftLayerComputeServic
@nacx does it look good?
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/653#issuecomment-71675280
thanks @grkvlt! lgtm +1
merging now
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/654#issuecomment-71797889
Merged as
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jclouds.git;a=commit;h=9e1d1cbfa9e2d77fe8b7e8feeae0bb4222654692
@grkvlt thanks!
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/654#issuecomment-71800808
901 - 1000 of 1680 matches
Mail list logo
