From cloudstack-dev-return-16243-apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Tue Jan 8 22:16:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B05D3DA38 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:16:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 48370 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2013 22:16:22 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-cloudstack-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 48342 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2013 22:16:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 48334 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jan 2013 22:16:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:16:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nour.mohammad@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.42] (HELO mail-qa0-f42.google.com) (209.85.216.42) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:16:15 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id hg5so172142qab.8 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:15:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pPlm90S+t1hkEZbVId33EOPIeGV2uAkaSUL9RvuHsVY=; b=pT5YV/l8cBH4eSYrbfs10OpmzPaMsshcsADs5DziOWADqsU/1ovaCGdySLslutD9VK eZzWNalcpXUTsGm/WT0teH2oVw+tHUhB4HJBZCzhhboRGGxA3qQGGxhKNQVLXf2Fwm8h K44FWmYPFWwdiBJAIa7Td5COvvCOqWCWTkOUHH1EnkhWRxp9tFSlgJuEaNjrhY24j2tt qnH1ojcMsb37XVQSWlUNi+ontM2G+CaM8SSXlIVDwx2rtf8auc557hNMSFi20e8efxVD mmzmNrmHsA9cgdi1+n2zLFsQhXbk+/9zqDjeGtbbAnknr6PthNTFFdVC6F5ij/2nB25d 2RYA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.117.70 with SMTP id p6mr35734269qaq.88.1357683354224; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:15:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.113.102 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:15:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <0BF8BD33-C803-4E49-B3F4-B5128D677ACE@basho.com> <65412DD7-74E6-470A-B2CE-F84244DE106F@basho.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 23:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master From: Mohammad Nour El-Din To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074afec0bc92f04d2ce4a70 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --20cf3074afec0bc92f04d2ce4a70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi... For the points about following or not following the std Maven directory structure, I would suggest to do it after merging Javelin into master branch Is there a separate branch for updating similar maven configurations ? or making our poms comply to the std Maven conventions ? If not would it be worthy to create that branch gather interested people to work on it ? Thoughts ? On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:21 PM, John Burwell wrote: > Edison, > > Cool. Sorry for the mini-freak out. I also posted my design thoughts to > the "new storage framework update" thread started a little bit back. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Edison Su wrote: > > > Yes, there is no immediate change to s3-backed storage code on master > branch after javelin is merged into master. As I haven't glue the new > storage code on javelin branch with storage related api calls yet, so all > the existing storage code on master will/should work as it is. > > After the merge, we can decide when to use the new storage framework > code. I think all we agree on that the storage code needs to be refactored, > and if then we agree on how to do it, that will be the time we can switch > to new storage code. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:44 AM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master > >> > >> Edison, > >> > >> So the current changes for S3-backed Secondary Storage will not be > impacted > >> by the Javelin's new storage architecture? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -John > >> > >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Edison Su wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com] > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:13 AM > >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> Will this merge be pre or post 4.1.0? I am concerned regarding the > >>>> S3-backed > >>> > >>> Plan before 4.1.0. > >>> > >>>> Secondary Storage feature. Looking at this branch, the work done to > >>>> support > >>>> S3 does not appear to compatible with the new storage architecture, > >>>> and I don't think there is enough time before 31 Jan 2013 to > >>>> retrofit. I also have > >>> > >>> The existing storage code on master will not be changed, as the most > of our > >> changes on javelin branch are in the fresh new maven projects. > >>> > >>>> design concerns which I raise on a separate thread. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'd like to know your comments on the design. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -John > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Alex Huang > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> The problem that Howie is talking about is that none of our > >>>>>> projects are structured in the "standard" maven layout. This isn't > >>>>>> just a test source issue. > >>>>>> > >>>>> I'm saying maven have a way to accommodate for that by specifying > >>>>> exactly > >>>> where the directory should be in the pom.xml. > >>>>> > >>>>> Like I said though, I don't know why it doesn't follow standard > layout. > >>>> Maybe it was just easier to do the maven conversion this way? I > >>>> think all the directories in javelin has follow the current layout in > >>>> 4.0 as well. We can make all of the javelin directories follow the > >>>> standard if there was no clear call on how to layout the structures > >> originally. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Alex > >>> > > > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour ---- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" - Albert Einstein --20cf3074afec0bc92f04d2ce4a70--