cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hugo Trippaers <h...@trippaers.nl>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.4.0
Date Thu, 03 Jul 2014 06:49:46 GMT
Hey Mike,

That is technically not the way this vote works. Release votes a a “Lazy Majority” vote.
This means that the vote requires at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes.
 For the exact working see paragraphs 3.4.4 and 3.2.2 of the Apache CloudStack bylaws.



Cheers,

Hugo


On 3 jul. 2014, at 02:13, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:

> We have at least one binding -1, so this VOTE won't pass.
> 
> We should continue to test on this RC, though, as Marcus mentioned, in an
> effort to reduce RC spin.
> 
> We also shouldn't spin up a new RC until next week as many in the U.S. are
> on a long weekend starting tomorrow.
> 
> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> -1
>> 
>> I'm unable to add a KVM host. It seems to be related to changes in the
>> SshCmdHelper. The mgmt server issues an ssh check to see of the host has
>> kvm modules installed, which it shows it does, but there is a null pointer
>> in the SshCmdHelper and it doesn't interpret the result correctly.  I saw
>> this once, over a month ago, and commented on CLOUDSTACK-6804. They say the
>> null pointer is fixed in CLOUDSTACK-6844, but it looks like it was
>> committed in 4.4-forward and never pulled in to the release branch.
>> 
>> I tested this release with
>> cherry-picking 2ec7359b4eb501b0d9e80ed87af7a54938e9d505 from 4.4-forward.
>> It seems to work, though the fix seems a bit hacky (sleep loop for up to
>> 1s, waiting for null pointer to not be null), but perhaps I just don't
>> understand the problem well enough. In the interest of reducing RC
>> iterations, I went ahead and continued to test per the devcloud-kvm docs.
>> So far everything looks good as far as basic deployment and built-in
>> storage types.
>> 
>> * Launched VPC with a default-allow network and a default-deny network
>> * launched an nfs-based vm in default-deny and clvm based in default-allow
>> with qcow2 template
>> * registered vmdk template for KVM, launched a vm based on it, for both nfs
>> and lvm
>> * registered raw image template, launched one for nfs and lvm
>> * set up port forward for 22 on half of vms, static nat on the other half,
>> verified default-allow/deny worked as needed
>> * updated acls to allow 22 into everything, logged in to all servers to
>> verify they deployed correctly
>> 
>> I don't believe CLOUDSTACK-6036 should block this release, FWIW. First,
>> there's no indication from the bug that it still affects 4.4.0, second,
>> it's not a regression, third, it didn't block the 4.3 release either,
>> fourth, from the sound of it, the worst of the issue is that a vm is
>> inadvertently stopped if it previously had an issue stopping and upgrade
>> timing happens to be just right, with a fix of simply restarting the vm.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zieba@gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> 
>>> -1 because CLOUDSTACK-6036
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-07-02 22:18 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>> <javascript:;>>:
>>> 
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>> I've created a 4.4.0 release, with the following artifacts up for a
>> vote:
>>>> 
>>>> Git Branch and Commit SH:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.4-RC20140702T2107
>>>> Commit: 379387961bd05d1f84fe2e9a1997e9ecdceef91a
>>>> 
>>>> List of changes:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/latest/
>>>> 
>>>> Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the same
>>>> location):
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.4.0/
>>>> 
>>>> PGP release keys (signed using 4096R/AA4736F3):
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>> 
>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>> 
>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
>>>> indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>> 
>>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I will ad my key to the mentioned KEYS file as soon as possible,
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Tomasz Zięba
>>> Twitter: @TZieba
>>> LinkedIn: pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zięba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/
>> <http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi%C4%99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/>
>>> <http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi%C4%99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/>
>>> <http://pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zi%C4%99ba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/>
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *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=play>*™*


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message