cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wilder Rodrigues <>
Subject Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:49:09 GMT

Do you actually know the amount of blockers we have and how many are VR related? Because I
have seen emails from Rajani around concerning the blockers and I don’t see many. So, yes,
I really do think your approach is non-sense.

I mentioned it before, about 1 week ago, but I think you just ignored the content of the email.
We have 7 blockers, from which 4 are VR related but probably only 2 are related to the refactor
of the router side (python code). You created 2 of the blockers. So, I think would be better
to focus on fixing them other than making a storm out of it.

You can see the list here:

The java part of the router refactor was released on 4.5, quite some time ago. So, please
have a look at git log before mentioned the refactor as a whole.

Another thing is: master is unstable - not because VR changes - and nobody could tests the
PRs that should fix the VR issues.  When we suggested to stabilise Master, people kept pushing
features through PRs thinking that it would help - even after we said only BLOCKER issues
would be merged.

So, please stop this storm around the VR because we are trying to work.


On 24 Sep 2015, at 17:21, Raja Pullela <<>>

@wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you realize amount
of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready to go out.

Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a closer look
then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in the implementation didn't
exist.  I will post the bug details around this.

Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios and will take substantial
time to test/stabilize.

The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number of failures
and it will take us good time to get those fixed.

Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to these starting
next week.

Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a new run to complete.

On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa <<>>

On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma <<>>

Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months ago? And expect
it to become more stable?

I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about the VR refactoring,
indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now does not seem like a good idea.

I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja showed XS tests
almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.

The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The problem is we
are unable to resolve them effectively because master is unstable. There currently isn’t
a single PR that solves it, hence there is no way to test PRs. This is because we have many
PRs open and they were all branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test
proposed PRs.

This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked and we could solve
issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but at least we could work on stabilising
it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” that made things worse. Probably even multiple of

Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it seemed), so indeed
if we have issues now of stability, we should identify what caused it

To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it stable. I’ll have
a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we need to combine to make it work
again. O
nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR with current master
and work from there.

Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the instability you could
revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not render master unstable.

Thanks for looking into it.



On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru" <<>>

My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR functionalities are broken
and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely will take some time and effort from several
folks to get it to a stable state.

Ram Katru

-----Original Message-----
From: Raja Pullela []
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM
Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?


I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies to restart this
thread again.

However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing lot of VR issues,
about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the refactoring that has happened.  I
have had the same concern for sometime now  (VR issues have been on the list of issues to
be looked into for at least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with VR
being very fundamental to the system.

Couple of solutions/proposals –

1)      Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time and it is working

2)      Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns, what we will find
out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR functionality.

Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,



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