On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:05:05AM +0100, Sander Grendelman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2014 01:52 PM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
> >> >Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, sim
On Jan 13, 2014, at 11:05 , Sander Grendelman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2014 01:52 PM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, simple, trivial f
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
>> On 01/10/2014 01:52 PM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
>> >Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, simple, trivial fix to a hook.
>>
>> Hi Sander,
>>
>> please use bug summary s
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:55:18PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
> On 01/10/2014 01:52 PM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
> >Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, simple, trivial fix to a hook.
>
> Hi Sander,
>
> please use bug summary so folks won't have to go and look what the
> number means just
On 01/08/2014 03:12 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:
Hi,
I already wrote it in the BZ, but I'll duplicate here for faster
feedback:
I'm willing to implement this if I can get some guidance in my
leisure time, if nobody else does this already.
The BZ states "The limitation is fictitious, and there is no g
On 01/10/2014 01:52 PM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, simple, trivial fix to a hook.
Hi Sander,
please use bug summary so folks won't have to go and look what the
number means just to see if relevant to them.
this is about:
Bug 1035314 - vdsm-hook-nes
On 01/08/2014 11:23 AM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
Now that BZ#1038525 (live snapshot merge for backup api) is closed as a
duplicate of BZ#647386 ( You are not authorized to access bug #647386 )
Shouldn't BZ#647386 targeted for 3.4? Or for a future version?
this is a rhev rfe. we're using ov
On 01/08/2014 11:45 AM, Sander Grendelman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
Il 08/01/2014 10:23, Sander Grendelman ha scritto:
Now that BZ#1038525 (live snapshot merge for backup api) is closed as a
duplicate of BZ#647386 ( You are not authorized to access bug #64
On 01/08/2014 10:51 AM, Markus Stockhausen wrote:
integration 1037663 F20 - ovirt-log-collector: conflicts with file from
package sos-3.0-3.fc20.noarch
Given the fact that F20 is already relased and Ovirt 3.4.0 is intended to
support it ... shouldn't that be a blocker?
well, it could al
On 01/08/2014 10:46 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
Hi,
as you may know, we're planning to build oVirt 3.4.0 beta really soon and
release 3.4.0 by end of January.
A tracker bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024889) has been
created for this release.
The following is a list of the
Can I propose BZ#1035314 for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, simple, trivial fix to a hook.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you may know, we're planning to build oVirt 3.4.0 beta really soon and
> release 3.4.0 by end of January.
> A tracker bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
Hi,
I already wrote it in the BZ, but I'll duplicate here for faster
feedback:
I'm willing to implement this if I can get some guidance in my
leisure time, if nobody else does this already.
The BZ states "The limitation is fictitious, and there is no gain in
maintaining it." and I strongly agree
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
> Il 08/01/2014 10:23, Sander Grendelman ha scritto:
>> Now that BZ#1038525 (live snapshot merge for backup api) is closed as a
>> duplicate of BZ#647386 ( You are not authorized to access bug #647386 )
>>
>> Shouldn't BZ#647386 targeted
Il 08/01/2014 10:23, Sander Grendelman ha scritto:
> Now that BZ#1038525 (live snapshot merge for backup api) is closed as a
> duplicate of BZ#647386 ( You are not authorized to access bug #647386 )
>
> Shouldn't BZ#647386 targeted for 3.4? Or for a future version?
>
BZ#1038525 is open and t
Now that BZ#1038525 (live snapshot merge for backup api) is closed as a
duplicate of BZ#647386 ( You are not authorized to access bug #647386 )
Shouldn't BZ#647386 targeted for 3.4? Or for a future version?
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http
> integration 1037663 F20 - ovirt-log-collector: conflicts with file from
> package sos-3.0-3.fc20.noarch
Given the fact that F20 is already relased and Ovirt 3.4.0 is intended to
support it ... shouldn't that be a blocker?
Markus*
Hi,
as you may know, we're planning to build oVirt 3.4.0 beta really soon and
release 3.4.0 by end of January.
A tracker bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024889) has been
created for this release.
The following is a list of the current blocker bugs with target 3.4.0:
Whiteboard
17 matches
Mail list logo
