Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of shadowsor@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <43922804-240A-4C3D-8B42-D4EB55461E70@gmail.com>
References: <976373972.31275753.1378737768643.JavaMail.root@ena.com>
	<CE53799C.2B494%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
	<CACOnxCgAP+c7m2wVFmkeYtz7OGnkhOdmrgVc+ie4FxFFtgsJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALFpzo5aoMwrWYw42U7s8nB_VDoAeaw3sb=iuj2kv_jPtODnSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGQtxvZ+-fvckuEtBeR5u0tSDT_ZSn0h+pG-2YC=rko+yWFfQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<43922804-240A-4C3D-8B42-D4EB55461E70@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:04:18 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CALFpzo4Pg2nikscSh75eWOPUb3y-Bq9m6oYX-vaPTDetpO_7_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
From: Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There was one other thing I saw come through regarding KVM bridges,
that should probably be added as well, but I haven't looked at it
extensively, maybe someone else can confirm.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <runseb@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> Maybe before we get to carried away talking about future releases and mor=
e automated testing (which is great and many of us have advocating for and =
Prasanna has done outstanding working on BVT, jenkins and the test matrix),=
 we need to focus on how to get 4.2 out.
>
> Marcus has a binding -1, so that means the vote fails and we need another=
 RC (unless someone challenges Marcus's veto and he changes his mind).
>
> So what needs to be in the RC (aside from the cherry pick mentioned by Ma=
rcus).
> Are there more blockers ?
> Do we need to invest in more testing before cutting that new RC or is it =
just that one cherry pick ?
>
> If we agree on that and test before cutting, then maybe the vote can pass=
 :)
>
> -sebastien
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>
>> Why can't we cover every use case, Marcus. We will need help from
>> users, but if they do help it will be easy to do so.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>>> I was actually talking about separate things in relation to this
>>> thread and the other where I mentioned that I'd like to see a release
>>> focused on bugfixing and testing. With that, I'm advocating a test for
>>> every api call and focusing on broadening use case test coverage.
>>>
>>> Here, I'm simply talking about taking the support matrix and doing
>>> some vary basic testing. This can be a dozen or so tests, each
>>> platform we say we support needs to successfully deploy a zone and a
>>> vm on every storage type that is in the support matrix. I don't think
>>> this would include plugins (or maybe those are left to the developer
>>> of the third party plugin). For KVM, this is literally a marvin script
>>> away from being there, I don't think there's a ton of work. I have no
>>> idea what we have or can do with vmware, and I'm guessing Xen is
>>> largely covered already.
>>>
>>> We'll never be able to cover every use case, I may be able to deploy a
>>> zone with my KVM setup, but not someone else's special network layout.
>>> I'd just like to see sanity checks to say it works, at all, on the
>>> handful of 'supported' systems.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>> Do we have any statistics that say how many of our customers are using
>>>> feature x, feature y, etc.?
>>>>
>>>> If not, I would say if we know about a feature that has regressed to t=
he
>>>> point of breakage in 4.2 that it should be fixed before releasing (or =
at
>>>> the very least well documented, so - if it is impactful to someone - t=
hey
>>>> do not upgrade until it has been fixed).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
>>>> Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think that Animesh is trying to stress what is "key". If it hits 1%=
 of
>>>>> cloud operators is it key?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/9/13 7:42 AM, "Simon Weller" <sweller@ena.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -1 from me as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know we're trying to hit timed releases, but I think it's very
>>>>>> important to preserve key underlying functionality across releases. =
If a
>>>>>> supported and documented feature is known to be broken, we need to
>>>>>> address it...if we don't, it's going to cause lots of pain, and refl=
ect
>>>>>> badly on ACS as a project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 9:24:23 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CloudStack 4.2.0 (fourth round)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:40:30AM -0600, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>>>>>>> -1 ... sorry guys, especially with Simon chiming in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd request f2c5b5fbfe45196dfad2821fca513ddd6efa25c9 be cherry-pick=
ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm -1, given simon's perspective as well. Since we have the fix, le=
t's
>>>>>> get it into the release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=3Dplay>
>>>> *=99*
>