incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Will Chan <will.c...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.0.0-incubating Release, first round
Date Fri, 12 Oct 2012 03:48:19 GMT
Go ahead with the recast of votes then if you don't want QA to re-test.  My binding vote is
based on Citrix QA test.

Will

________________________________________
From: Chip Childers [chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:44 PM
To: <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.0.0-incubating Release, first round

On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:04 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:

> Both of these issues we found today are not blocker and the fixes are trivial.
> We don't need another round test from QA team: the fix for bug CloudStack-316 is agreed
by Wido, Marcus and I, and tested by Wido, another bug fixes are related to legal.

Agreed. If we abort, we can immediately cut another release candidate
and start another vote. No need for the test engineers in the
community to due a full round of testing prior to seeing a new vote.

I would, however, love any future vote to include test engineers
personally voting based on testing the official RC artifacts!

> Seems recasting another round voting is inevitable?
>
I'm going to leave this thread open until the morning to gather more
opinions and comments. However, I think you are right. In all
likelihood, I'll abort tomorrow morning and create a new RC and vote
thread.

> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:47 PM, "Simon Weller" <sweller@ena.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> <On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2012 03:21 AM, Chip Childers (ASF) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to call a vote for Apache CloudStack (Incubating) Release
>>>> 4.0.0-incubating.
>>>>
>>>> Instructions for Validating and Testing the artifacts can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+4.0+test+procedure
>>>>
>>>> We encourage the whole community to download and test these release
>>>> artifacts so that any critical issues can be resolved before the
>>>> release is made. Everyone is free to vote on this release, so please
>>>> give it a shot!
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for stopping the +1 spree, but I'm going to vote -1.
>>>
>>> While testing the artifact I ran into CLOUDSTACK-316 (which I created).
>>>
>>> QA (nofi) only tested with cloudbr0 in their setup and never tested usage
>>> with other traffic labels.
>>>
>>> After talking with Edison and Marcus we came up with commit
>>> 513b680d96d07fd44479995ac5eb6358725c9421 which resolves it.
>>>
>>> The problem in my setup was that adding the host would fail and you'd have
>>> to figure out what was going wrong.
>>>
>>> I understood what was going wrong, but this would/could scare a new user
>>> away since a very simple use-case didn't work during the wizard.
>>>
>>> So my vote is -1 on this artifact.
>>>
>>> Wido
>>>
>>> Wido,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detailed testing.
>>>
>>> IMO, I believe we would be best served aborting round 1 and
>>> regenerating a new release artifact with the fix for your issue. I
>>> would also include the fixes for at least CLOUDSTACK-314 (Citrix
>>> license header remains in
>>> test/integration/component/test_allocation_states.py) and
>>> CLOUDSTACK-302 (New Features Are Added to ReleaseNotes). Both of
>>> these are low risk changes, but important documentation and legal
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to abort the vote immediately, but I would like to get
>>> opinions from other community members on this topic.
>>>
>>> -chip
>>
>> This is a good catch. We have always used cloudbr0, so we didn't test this in our
lab either. This definitely needs to be addressed as it's going to cause lots of pain for
new KVM users.
>>
>> I'm changing my vote to -1.
>>
>> - Si
>>
>> <snip>
>
Mime
View raw message