Thanks Sudha! Comments below. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > +1 to create a new RC with the fix. Also pl review if there are any > additional fixes that need to go in. > Before the new RC need to resolve the following defects in my opinion > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-285 - Kelven ??
This seems like a rather old bug. I'm going to suggest that it's targeted for 4.1.0 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-294 - this is resolved - > just need to put it in resolved status Closed > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-318 - This has been checked > and common scenario. Need to understand use case as this is not reproducible Unless it's reproduced, I think it might be user error or a specific environment problem. I'm marking it as 4.1.0 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-324 - QA is checking this one This seems like a rather old bug. I'm going to suggest that it's targeted for 4.1.0 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-325 - there is a workaround > for this one - But see if you can fix it before you cut second RC 4.1.0 > > QA will validate next RC for sanity validation and will cast vote based on > validation. However you can go ahead with outlined plan below. > > Thanks > /Sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:45 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...@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" <swel...@ena.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> <On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@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> >> >
