+1.
Did some basic testing like creating vms, attaching volume, creating
snapshots etc. and they all worked fine.
Thanks,
-Nitin
On 14/11/13 8:40 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>+1 binding (I had not been clear on this in this thread it seems)
>
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
><abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Marcus,
>>
>> Just summarising your concerns so that they can be followed upon:
>> 1. Due to a VR script change a restart of VR is required. This should be
>> noted down in upgrade instructions in RN. (Radhika to note)
>> 2. For a maintenance release we should limit the scope to only
>>blockers. I
>> guess what is done is done probably for better as the main release had
>>so
>> many new features that a whole lot fixes were expected in the
>>maintenance
>> release. But again for further maintenance releases scope should be
>> restricted to important fixes.
>>
>> Any other thing that has been missed ?
>>
>> -abhi
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/13 12:06 am, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm unable to deploy virtual machines after upgrading an existing
>>>4.2.0 to this release.
>>>
>>>It looks like the file savepassword.sh was added at the end of October
>>>as a virtual router script. This would likely mean that people
>>>upgrading to 4.2.1 will need to upgrade/redeploy their routers. I can
>>>verify that deploy works if I reboot the router.
>>>
>>>Looking over the current state of 4.2, I'm actually pretty surprised
>>>at how much has changed. I'm seeing lots of whitespace fixes, changes
>>>to interfaces, etc. My impression was that we'd only commit fixes for
>>>blocker bugs once a release has gone production, only touching it if
>>>we had to. This went pretty well with 4.1, I thought, but everything
>>>was going through the RM that round.
>>>
>>>2013-11-13 11:25:24,917 DEBUG
>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Executing:
>>>/usr/share/cloudstack-common/scripts/network/domr/router_proxy.sh
>>>savepassword.sh 169.254.1.163 -v 10.2.4.116 -p fnirq_cnffjbeq
>>>
>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,000 DEBUG
>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Exit value is 127
>>>
>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,001 DEBUG
>>>[resource.virtualnetwork.VirtualRoutingResource]
>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) bash: /opt/cloud/bin/savepassword.sh: No
>>>such file or directory
>>>
>>>2013-11-13 11:25:25,002 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent]
>>>(agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 21-289734823: { Ans: , MgmtId:
>>>90520732090445, via: 21, Ver: v1, Flags: 110,
>>>[{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details":"Unable to
>>>save password to
>>>DomR.","wait":0}},{"com.cloud.agent.api.Answer":{"result":false,"details
>>>":
>>>"Stopped
>>>by previous failure","wait":0}}] }
>>>
>>>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Chip Childers
>>><chipchild...@apache.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Abhinandan Prateek
>>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote is to approve the current RC build for 4.2.1 maintenance
>>>>>release.
>>>>> For this particular release various upgrade paths have been tested
>>>>>apart from regression tests and BVTs.
>>>>> Around 175 bugs have been fixed some new features added (see
>>>>>CHANGES).
>>>>>
>>>>> Following are the particulars for this release:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=
>>>>>re
>>>>>fs/heads/4.2
>>>>> commit: 0b9eadaf14513f5c72de672963b0e2f12ee7206f
>>>>>
>>>>> List of changes:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;
>>>>>f=
>>>>>CHANGES;hb=4.2.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Source release revision 3492 (checksums and signatures are available
>>>>>at the same location):
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cloudstack/4.2.1/
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP release keys (signed using RSA Key ID = 42443AA1):
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/cloudstack/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Vote will be open for 72 hours (until 11/15 End of day PST).
>>>>>
>>>>> For sanity in tallying the vote, can PMC members please be sure to
>>>>>indicate "(binding)" with their vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>
>>>> +1 (binding)
>>>>
>>>> I only performed very rudimentary functional testing, but the
>>>> artifact's look legit.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing this Abhi!
