cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tutkowski, Mike" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack RC3
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:18:03 GMT

I opened a PR against the most recent RC:

I ran all managed-storage regression tests against it and they pass (as noted in detail in
the PR).

If someone wants to take this code and create a new RC from it, I’m +1 on the new RC as
long as this is the only commit added to it since the current RC.


On 6/9/17, 7:43 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <> wrote:

    Hi everyone,
    I found a critical issue that was introduced into this RC since the most recent RC, so
I am -1 on this RC.
    The fix for this ticket breaks the support for storing volume snapshots on primary storage
(which is a feature managed storage can support):
    Here is the SHA: 336df84f1787de962a67d0a34551f9027303040e
    At a high level, what it does is remove a row from the cloud.snapshot_store_ref table
when a volume is deleted that has one or more volume snapshots.
    This is fine for non-managed (traditional) storage; however, managed storage can store
volume snapshots on primary storage, so removing this row breaks that functionality.
    I can fix the problem that this commit introduced by looking at the primary storage that
supports the volume snapshot and checking the following: 1) Is this managed storage? 2) If
yes, is the snapshot in question stored on that primary storage?
    The problem is I will be out of the office for a couple weeks and will not be able to
address this until I return.
    We could revert the commit, but I still will not have time to run the managed-storage
regression test suite until I return.
    On a side note, it looks like this commit was introduced since the most recent RC. I would
argue that it was not a blocker and should not have been placed into the new RC. We (as a
community) tend to have a lot of code go in between RCs and that just increases the chances
of introducing critical issues and thus delaying the release. We’ve gotten better at this
over the years, but we should focus more on only allowing the entry of new code into a follow-on
RC that is critical (or so trivial as to not at all be likely to introduce any problems…like
fixing an error message).
    Thanks for your efforts on this, everyone!
    On 6/9/17, 8:52 AM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <> wrote:
        Hi Rajani,
        I will see if I can get all of my managed-storage testing (both automated and manual)
done today. If not, we’ll need to see if someone else can complete it before we OK this
RC as I won’t be back in the office for a couple weeks. I’ll report back later today.
        On 6/9/17, 2:34 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <> wrote:
            Yup. thats right. I dont know how it happened but, it created
            from the previous RC commit. The script is supposed to do a git
            pull. I didn't notice any failures. Not sure what went wrong.
            Thanks for finding it mike. I am creating RC4 now and cancelling
            ~ Rajani
            On June 9, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
            ( wrote:
            Hi Rajani,
            I don’t see the following PR in this RC:
            I ran all of my managed-storage regression tests. They all
            passed with the exception of the one that led to PR 2098.
            As I examine the RC in a bit more detail, it sits on top of
            ed2f573, but I think it should sit on top of ed376fc.
            As a result, I am -1 on the RC.
            It takes me about a day to run all of the managed-storage
            regression tests and I am out of the office for the next couple
            weeks, so I’d really like to avoid another RC until I’m back and
            able to test the next RC.
            On 6/7/17, 4:36 AM, "Rajani Karuturi" <> wrote:
            Hi All,
            I've created release with the following artifacts up
            for a vote:
            Git Branch and Commit SH:
            Source release (checksums and signatures are available at the
            SystemVm Templates:
            PGP release keys (signed using CBB44821):
            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)

View raw message