incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Which branch to Nicira integration?
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:32:56 GMT
I assume Hugo et al would have to sign the Apache ICLA, even though they are not committers?
They will be contributors so they need to sign the CLA?

--
Chiradeep

On Jun 6, 2012, at 20:59, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:52 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Hugo Trippaers
>> <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>> Heya all,
>>> 
>>> This afternoon we had a nice chat with Chiradeep about the Nicira integration.
It's moving along nicely know.
>>> 
>>> However while setting up a test environment with a branch containing new code,
i ran into trouble with the secondary storage vm. Troubleshooting that i found that the master
brach (which i used to base my changes on) is lacking all build steps for the console-proxy.
>>> 
>>> So my questions are
>>> which branch should i base my changes and eventual patch on? 3.0.x, master or
another one?
>>> If master, why is the console-proxy taken out and how to work around this?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You should definitely be building off of a branch based on master in
>> the git repo - what errors are you seeing with the console proxy?  We
>> likely need to fix that.
>> 
>> --David
> 
> That's my fault. I ripped console proxy out of the build-cloud.xml
> when I was removing it from the RPM (no idea what possessed me to do
> that), and if you didn't need to build systemVMs you wouldn't have
> noticed it missing. I just pushed that back in - but it's no longer
> part of build-all - but you should be able to build it (and the rest
> of CloudStack) with:
> 
> ant build-console-proxy build-all
> 
> Let me know if you run into problems.
> 
> --David

Mime
View raw message