Ok, i don't want to press for a release. We'll see (i think we are at
+2 binding???)
@Travis: You can find a link to the artifacts in the vote thread.
regards,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Travis Graham <tgra...@tgraham.us> wrote:
> I think that's an acceptable middle ground. I would prefer to have the
> artifacts to test the upgrade procedures with and with a designated committer
> to review, commit and release the docs as progress is made we should all be
> able to call this approach a win.
>
> I've yet to get any kind of environment setup to roll my own release and I
> would prefer not to have that overhead just to test the upgrade and make
> improvements to the docs.
>
> Does Jenkins have current {stable} artifacts that can be used to install
> 4.2.1 and test with for upgrades?
>
> Travis
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Simon Weller <swel...@ena.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree completely.
>> I've spent the last couple of evenings trying to get a KVM lab upgraded from
>> 4.1 to 4.2.1 by registering the new template first using the name in the
>> upgrade*.java, and I've had zero success getting the SSVM to come back up.
>> However, if I don't install the new template prior to upgrade and replace
>> the existing template, and do some database manipulation (thanks to Kelsey's
>> documented experiences in CLOUDSTACK-4826), I can get the SSVM to come up
>> fine. Maybe I'm missing something here, but without reliable documented
>> steps of what is meant to work, it's hard to test the upgrade process.
>>
>> - Si
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 9:40 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Abhinandan Prateek; Alok Kumar Singh
>> Subject: Re: [ASF4.2.1] Release Notes
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 09:42:11AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
>>> Anyway we can wait next week to release.
>>>
>>> quite a few of us will be together in Amsterdam, we can dedicate a
>>> hackathon session to 4.2.1 , make sure RN are good, upgrade path etc…then
>>> test….
>>>
>>> I'd recommend keeping the vote open until then.
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>>
>> +1 to Seb's idea (although I already voted)
>
