Hi, I would say that once Daan reverts the commits I mentioned in a previous e-mail (related to 4.4 and 4.4-forward) that we are OK on those branches.
We can then try out the patch on master and see how it works. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that code was intended for 4.4 or even 4.4-forward as it's not related to a blocker or critical ticket. Thanks, Mike On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:03 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Noji, > > Please be very specific about which commits should be reverted and > which should be cherry-picked (and which related commits should stay) > I don't want to do anything last minute untill we are absolutely sure > and in agreement of what will work. > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Yoshikazu Nojima <m...@ynojima.net> > wrote: > > Hi Dann, > > Thank you for organizing issue. > > > >> Is this a blocker? > > Yes, it is. At least Mike's latest commit in master should be picked > > into 4.4 to utilize SolidFire's storage. > > If possible, I would like to make additional change I proposed. I > > regard this part is better to have, but not a blocker for 4.4. > > > >> Do you have that patch ready to ship? > > Yes, I have a patch and I pushed with a branch name > > "remove-root-disk-filtering-logic-for-iscsi-storage". > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/remove-root-disk-filtering-logic-for-iscsi-storage > > I suppose it works for Mike since the root disk filtering logic he > > concerned is removed. > > I confirmed it can be compiled, but I haven't confirmed in a test > > environment with iSCSI storage. > > > > Mike, > > Could you confirm this fix will resolve your concern? > > > > 2014-06-27 1:56 GMT-06:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>: > >> Noji, Mike, > >> > >> Is this a blocker? I realize that we are in three different timezones > >> and always one of us must be sleeping but I really would like to > >> handle this today in spite of other tasks. > >> > >> @Mike: I suppose you would consider it a blocker. if you read Noji's > >> latest proposal before breakfast, can you say something about the > >> feasibility of the solution? > >> > >> @ Noji, Do you have that patch ready to ship? and do you have an > >> alternative, in case it doesn't work for Mike? > >> As I recall the original issue that you solved with it was quite > >> serious to you, was it? Could we release with a revert? > >> > >> 20:00 UTC I come back home from unrelated business and could have an > >> irc meeting. > >> regard and many thanks, > >> Daan > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> ok, Mike I will have a look how it came in and revert > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Mike Tutkowski > >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>> Yeah, I just looked at the Review Request: > >>>> > >>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/22717/#review46838 > >>>> > >>>> It says it's for master (4.5), so I'm not sure how this ended up in > 4.4 or > >>>> 4.4-forward. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Mike Tutkowski < > >>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Daan, > >>>>> > >>>>> Please revert commit 99dd86e588fd28dedd5fb3b830297a8a4f885760 from > 4.4. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also, please revert commit 45f0c7367680f4bfbcee470139b708d69322be78 > from > >>>>> 4.4-forward. > >>>>> > >>>>> These commits actually break zone-wide primary storage. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was not aware that they ended up in 4.4 and 4.4-forward (I was > thinking > >>>>> they were just in master). > >>>>> > >>>>> I performed some testing on this logic in master tonight and saw the > >>>>> breakage of zone-wide primary storage. > >>>>> > >>>>> In my opinion, we don't have enough in the way of regression testing > in > >>>>> CloudStack to be comfortable committing code that can have such > >>>>> wide-ranging effects this late in the game. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we should start asking for a risk analysis from the > developer when > >>>>> code is checked in this late in the game (the more risk, the more > important > >>>>> the issue better be and the more testing that better have been > done). In > >>>>> this case, my entire plug-in would have been rendered useless in 4.4 > by > >>>>> these checkins and I don't understand how the issue itself even > qualified > >>>>> as a Blocker or Critical. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, Daan! > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *Mike Tutkowski* > >>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > >>>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > >>>>> o: 303.746.7302 > >>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > >>>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Mike Tutkowski* > >>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > >>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > >>>> o: 303.746.7302 > >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud > >>>> <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™* > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daan > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daan > > > > -- > Daan > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
