Thank you all! I would commit the change to MASTER soon.
--Sheng On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > Yes > Happy to +1. Sheng, thanks for stepping up and getting this done. > > --David > On Jun 20, 2013 7:19 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > Nice! I'm glad the feature has the benefit of tests now. Thanks for > > doing this Sheng! > > > > David - are you comfortable with this, and will you now +1 the feature? > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've updated baremetal-4.2 branch, added integration test for some of > > > baremetal related APIs, also fixed a bunch of baremetal API issues > > exposed > > > by the testing. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > --Sheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Chip Childers > > > <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:36:11AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote: > > >> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Chip Childers > > >> > <chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:00:33AM -0700, Sheng Yang wrote: > > >> > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I've created the https://reviews.apache.org/r/11977/ for > review. > > >> The > > >> > > > branch re-enabled the baremetal for master. And all major bugs > are > > >> > > cleaned. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1610 > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1618 > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1614 > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1440 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In fact it's not a feature merge, because the code is already in > > >> MASTER > > >> > > > ready. We just disable it due to stability problem of 4.1 > release. > > >> Now > > >> > > I've > > >> > > > tried to enable it, and the changeset is very small, mostly just > > >> revert > > >> > > the > > >> > > > old disabling baremetal codes, and fix some issues with > > introducing > > >> other > > >> > > > new features. Here is the summary: > > >> > > > > >> > > [snip] > > >> > > > > >> > > So David's standing veto was because of this comment (from him): > > >> > > > > >> > > "Baremetal seems to be suffering from a significant lack of unit > > tests > > >> > > and integration tests for marvin to consume. Let's get those in > > place > > >> > > before we consider re-enabling this." > > >> > > > > >> > > If I remember correctly, the reason that master has the code in > it, > > is > > >> > > specifically because we decided that disabling the feature was > > easier > > >> to > > >> > > honor the veto than reverting all of the changes. > > >> > > > > >> > > That being said, have we addressed the original veto's concerns? > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Not yet. I didn't realize it's vetoed due to this. Let me see what > > can I > > >> do > > >> > about it. > > >> > > >> Awesome. Thanks Sheng! > > >> > > >> > > > >> > In fact the above bugs cannot be detected for unit test or marvin > > test(I > > >> > even not sure if they're valid bugs or not, but at that time Frank > is > > on > > >> > vacation and nobody took a look at these then decided disable the > > >> feature, > > >> > and after I re-enabled them, everything works fine for me). > > >> > > >> Yeah, I think that the bugs were just in need of triage. The bugs > > >> themselves weren't the major issue (although they were concerning), as > > >> much as test coverage at either (or both) unit or integration levels. > > >> > > >> -chip > > >> > > >
