cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11
Date Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:57:48 GMT
All,


We're down to one feature PR towards 4.11 milestone now:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2298


The config drive PR from Frank (Nuage) has been accepted today after no regression test failures
seen from yesterday's smoketest run. We've also tested, reviewed and merge Wido's (blocker
fix) PR.


I've asked Mike to stabilize the branch; based on the smoketest results from today we can
see some failures caused by the PR. I'm willing to work with Mike and others to get this PR
tested, and merged over the weekends if we can demonstrate that no regression is caused by
it, i.e. no new smoketest regressions. I'll also try to fix regression and test failures over
the weekend.


Lastly, I would like to discuss a mistake I made today with merging the following PR which
per our guideline lacks one code review lgtm/approval:

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2152


The changes in above (merged) PR are all localized to a xenserver-swift file, that is not
tested by Travis or Trillian, since no new regression failures were seen I accepted and merge
it on that discretion. The PR was originally on the 4.11 milestone, however, due to it lacking
a JIRA id and no response from the author it was only recently removed from the milestone.


Please advise if I need to revert this, or we can review/lgtm it post-merge? I'll also ping
on the above PR.


- Rohit

<https://cloudstack.apache.org>



________________________________
From: Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 9:17:26 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Freezing master for 4.11



On 01/10/2018 07:26 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> I hope we understand each other correctly: No-one running an earlier
> version then 4.11 should miss out on any functionality they are using now.
>
> So if you use ipv6 and multiple cidrs now it must continue to work with no
> loss of functionality. see my question below.
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev_ia@bw-sw.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Daan, yes this sounds reasonable, I suppose who would like to fix, could
>> do custom build for himself...
>>
>> But still it should be aknowledged somehow, if you use several cidrs for
>> network, don't use v6, or don't upgrade to 4.11 because things will stop
>> running well.
>>
> ​Does this mean that several cidrs in ipv6 works in 4.9 and not in 4.11?
>

No, it doesn't. IPv6 was introduced in 4.10 and this broke in 4.10.

You can't run with 4.10 with multiple IPv4 CIDRs as well when you have
IPv6 enabled.

So this is broken in 4.10 and 4.11 in that case.

Wido

>
> if yes; it is a blocker
>
> if no; you might as well upgrade for other features as it doesn't work now
> either.
>

rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

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