Re: Compiling 4.11.2.0 from source with test failure

[Rohit Yadav]

Olivier,

You can exclude that test in pom.xml which likely is failing due to your local 
environment issue. Not recommended but you may also build by skipping unit 
tests using - DskipTests=true on mvn.

Regards.

Regards,
Rohit Yadav


From: Olivier Lemasle 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:31:57 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Compiling 4.11.2.0 from source with test failure

Same error for me. Did you found the cause of this test error?


rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Yiping Zhang  wrote:

>
>
> Hi, all:
>
>
>
> I am trying to compile CloudStack from the source using 4.11.2.0 branch.
> The build fails with one test failure in NioTest.java. How can I fix this
> error?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2019-02-12 11:07:47,541 INFO  [utils.testcase.NioTest] (main:) Clients
> stopped.
>
> 2019-02-12 11:07:47,541 INFO  [utils.testcase.NioTest] (main:) Server
> stopped.
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 60.106 sec
> <<< FAILURE! - in com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest
>
> testConnection(com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest)  Time elapsed: 60.103
> sec  <<< ERROR!
>
> org.junit.runners.model.TestTimedOutException: test timed out after 6
> milliseconds
>
> at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
>
> at
> com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest.testConnection(NioTest.java:145)
>
>
>
>
>
> (skip lots of output here)
>
>
>
>
>
> Results :
>
>
>
> Tests in error:
>
>   NioTest.testConnection:145 ? TestTimedOut test timed out after 6
> milliseco...
>
>
>
> Tests run: 300, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 1
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yiping
>


--
Olivier Lemasle
Ingénieur Logiciel
*Apalia*™
Mobile: +33-611-69-12-11

*http://www.apalia.net 
olivier.lema...@apalia.net
*

Re: Compiling 4.11.2.0 from source with test failure

[Olivier Lemasle]

Same error for me. Did you found the cause of this test error?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Yiping Zhang  wrote:

>
>
> Hi, all:
>
>
>
> I am trying to compile CloudStack from the source using 4.11.2.0 branch.
> The build fails with one test failure in NioTest.java. How can I fix this
> error?
>
>
>
>
>
> 2019-02-12 11:07:47,541 INFO  [utils.testcase.NioTest] (main:) Clients
> stopped.
>
> 2019-02-12 11:07:47,541 INFO  [utils.testcase.NioTest] (main:) Server
> stopped.
>
> Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 60.106 sec
> <<< FAILURE! - in com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest
>
> testConnection(com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest)  Time elapsed: 60.103
> sec  <<< ERROR!
>
> org.junit.runners.model.TestTimedOutException: test timed out after 6
> milliseconds
>
> at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
>
> at
> com.cloud.utils.testcase.NioTest.testConnection(NioTest.java:145)
>
>
>
>
>
> (skip lots of output here)
>
>
>
>
>
> Results :
>
>
>
> Tests in error:
>
>   NioTest.testConnection:145 ? TestTimedOut test timed out after 6
> milliseco...
>
>
>
> Tests run: 300, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 1
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Yiping
>


-- 
Olivier Lemasle
Ingénieur Logiciel
*Apalia*™
Mobile: +33-611-69-12-11

*http://www.apalia.net 
olivier.lema...@apalia.net
*

RE: CCC NA19 - talk selection

[Giles Sirett]

Hi Sven
Good question.

In short, it shouldn't involve too much work  -  we only have a few extra 
submissions on top of the number of slots we have 

We cant really do this on a public list so probably the most efficient is that 
the group jump on a conference call (maybe 45 minutes) to agree the schedule

So far I've got you, Mike, Paul & Gabriel as volunteers

I'll circulate the list of talks directly (off list) to that group and also the 
link to the boiler plate schedule
Will suggest some slots for the call at the same time


Kind regards
Giles

giles.sir...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Sven Vogel  
Sent: 20 May 2019 14:35
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: priv...@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: CCC NA19 - talk selection

Hi Giles,

I can help but what we need to do?

Greetings

Sven

Von meinem iPhone gesendet


__

Sven Vogel
Teamlead Platform

EWERK RZ GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 11
F +49 341 42649 - 18
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Frank Richter, Gerhard Hoyer
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 17023

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2011

EWERK-Blog | LinkedIn | Xing | Twitter | Facebook

Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist 
vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die 
E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
Dank.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
> Am 20.05.2019 um 15:14 schrieb Gabriel Beims Bräscher :
>
> I will not be able to attend the CCC NA19; however, I also can help 
> with this, Giles.
>
> Regards,
> Gabriel.
>
> Em seg, 20 de mai de 2019 às 10:08, Tutkowski, Mike < 
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com> escreveu:
>
>> I can help with this, Giles.
>>
>> 
>> From: Paul Angus 
>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 3:46:37 AM
>> To: priv...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: CCC NA19 - talk selection
>>
>> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click 
>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
>> the content is safe.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for taking this on Giles,  I'm happy to help out.
>>
>> From: Giles Sirett 
>> Sent: 20 May 2019 10:45
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: priv...@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: CCC NA19 - talk selection
>>
>> Hi all
>> The CFP for Cloudstack Collab  (http://us.cloudstackcollab.org/) has 
>> now closed.
>> We've had a good number of submissions which now need to be sifted 
>> and selected
>>
>> In previous years, we've done this by getting a small  "selection 
>> committee" together. My suggestion is that we do the same this year
>>
>> So, we need some volunteers
>>
>> Please, can anybody who like to help with this step forward now!
>>
>> We have to get the agenda together by 3 June, so time is tight
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Giles
>>
>>
>> giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Riepl, Gregor (SWISS TXT)]

+1

Re: CCC NA19 - talk selection

[Will Stevens]

I can help with this. I will be getting the CCC website up later this week
as well.

Cheers,

Will

On Mon, May 20, 2019, 5:45 AM Giles Sirett 
wrote:

> Hi all
> The CFP for Cloudstack Collab  (http://us.cloudstackcollab.org/) has now
> closed.
> We've had a good number of submissions which now need to be sifted and
> selected
>
> In previous years, we've done this by getting a small  "selection
> committee" together. My suggestion is that we do the same this year
>
> So, we need some volunteers
>
> Please, can anybody who like to help with this step forward now!
>
> We have to get the agenda together by 3 June, so time is tight
>
>
> Kind regards
> Giles
>
>
> giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Pierre-Luc Dion]

+1

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:18 AM Wido den Hollander  wrote:

> +1
>
> On 5/21/19 11:40 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> > All,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed
> so far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to
> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
> >
> >
> > Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
> >
> >
> > - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last
> ones to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host,
> but users are discouraged from using them
> >
> > - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that
> we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14
> and onwards
> >
> > - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs,
> packaging scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> >
> > ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rohit Yadav
> >
> > Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> >
> > https://www.shapeblue.com
> >
> >
> > 
> > From: Erik Weber 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
> > To: dev
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
> >
> > CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
> > Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
> > another ~4-6 months either.
> >
> > --
> > Erik
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
> >>
> >> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> >> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
> >>
> >>
> >> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
> >>
> >> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> >> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> >> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> >> and how to make any changes to applications.
> >>
> >> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> >> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> >>> As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> >>> not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> >>> it feasible.
> >>>
> >>> RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> >>> scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >>>
> >>> It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> >>> operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> >>> not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >>>
> >>> It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> >>> work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> >>> a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> >>>
> >>> I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> >>>
> >
> > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Wido den Hollander]

+1

On 5/21/19 11:40 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so 
> far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to 
> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
> 
> 
> Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
> 
> 
> - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones to 
> support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but users 
> are discouraged from using them
> 
> - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that we'll 
> stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14 and 
> onwards
> 
> - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging 
> scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
> 
> 
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> 
> 
> ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rohit Yadav
> 
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> 
> https://www.shapeblue.com
> 
> 
> 
> From: Erik Weber 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
> 
> CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
> Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
> another ~4-6 months either.
> 
> --
> Erik
> 
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
>  wrote:
>>
>> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>>
>> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
>> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>>
>>
>> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>>
>> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
>> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
>> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
>> and how to make any changes to applications.
>>
>> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
>> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
>>> As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
>>> not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
>>> it feasible.
>>>
>>> RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
>>> scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
>>>
>>> It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
>>> operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
>>> not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
>>>
>>> It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
>>> work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
>>> a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
>>>
>>> I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
>>>
> 
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
> www.shapeblue.com
> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> @shapeblue
>   
>  
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Andrija Panic]

+1


On Tue, May 21, 2019, 13:43 Sven Vogel  wrote:

> +1
>
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
>
>
> __
>
> Sven Vogel
> Teamlead Platform
>
> EWERK RZ GmbH
> Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
> P +49 341 42649 - 11
> F +49 341 42649 - 18
> s.vo...@ewerk.com
> www.ewerk.com
>
> Geschäftsführer:
> Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Frank Richter, Gerhard Hoyer
> Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 17023
>
> Zertifiziert nach:
> ISO/IEC 27001:2013
> DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
> DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2011
>
> EWERK-Blog | LinkedIn | Xing | Twitter | Facebook
>
> Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.
>
> Disclaimer Privacy:
> Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist
> vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der
> bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung,
> Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte
> informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie
> die E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System.
> Vielen Dank.
>
> The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential
> and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of
> this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents
> is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately
> and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
> > Am 21.05.2019 um 12:44 schrieb Boris Stoyanov <
> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com>:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > —Bobby
> >
> >
> > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> > @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 21 May 2019, at 13:31, Wei ZHOU  wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> -Wei
> >>
> >> Rohit Yadav  于2019年5月21日周二 上午11:40写道：
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed
> so
> >>> far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited
> to
> >>> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last
> ones
> >>> to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host,
> but
> >>> users are discouraged from using them
> >>>
> >>> - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that
> >>> we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e.
> 4.14
> >>> and onwards
> >>>
> >>> - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs,
> packaging
> >>> scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Rohit Yadav
> >>>
> >>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
> >>>
> >>> https://www.shapeblue.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> From: Erik Weber 
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
> >>> To: dev
> >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
> >>>
> >>> CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
> >>> Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
> >>> another ~4-6 months either.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Erik
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
> 
>  CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
>  CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
> 
> 
>  +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
> 
>  As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon
> in
>  any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
>  lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
>  and how to make any changes to applications.
> 
>  Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier
> than
>  one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
> 
>  Ron
> 
> > On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > it feasible.
> >
> > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >
> > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so
> it's
> > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >
> > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome 

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Sven Vogel]

+1

Von meinem iPhone gesendet


__

Sven Vogel
Teamlead Platform

EWERK RZ GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 11
F +49 341 42649 - 18
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Frank Richter, Gerhard Hoyer
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 17023

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2011

EWERK-Blog | LinkedIn | Xing | Twitter | Facebook

Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist 
vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die 
E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
Dank.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.
> Am 21.05.2019 um 12:44 schrieb Boris Stoyanov :
>
> +1
>
> —Bobby
>
>
> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>> On 21 May 2019, at 13:31, Wei ZHOU  wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> -Wei
>>
>> Rohit Yadav  于2019年5月21日周二 上午11:40写道：
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so
>>> far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to
>>> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
>>>
>>>
>>> - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones
>>> to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but
>>> users are discouraged from using them
>>>
>>> - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that
>>> we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14
>>> and onwards
>>>
>>> - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging
>>> scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>>
>>> ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rohit Yadav
>>>
>>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
>>>
>>> https://www.shapeblue.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Erik Weber 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
>>> To: dev
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
>>>
>>> CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
>>> Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
>>> another ~4-6 months either.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Erik
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
>>>  wrote:

 According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS

 CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
 CentOS 7 EOL is 2024


 +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.

 As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
 any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
 lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
 and how to make any changes to applications.

 Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
 one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.

 Ron

> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> it feasible.
>
> RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
>
> It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
>
> It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
>
> I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
>
>>>
>>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
>>> www.shapeblue.com
>>> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
>>> @shapeblue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Boris Stoyanov]

+1

—Bobby


boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

> On 21 May 2019, at 13:31, Wei ZHOU  wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> -Wei
> 
> Rohit Yadav  于2019年5月21日周二 上午11:40写道：
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so
>> far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to
>> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
>> 
>> 
>> Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
>> 
>> 
>> - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones
>> to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but
>> users are discouraged from using them
>> 
>> - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that
>> we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14
>> and onwards
>> 
>> - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging
>> scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
>> 
>> 
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> 
>> 
>> ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Rohit Yadav
>> 
>> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
>> 
>> https://www.shapeblue.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Erik Weber 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
>> To: dev
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
>> 
>> CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
>> Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
>> another ~4-6 months either.
>> 
>> --
>> Erik
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>>> 
>>> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
>>> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>>> 
>>> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
>>> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
>>> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
>>> and how to make any changes to applications.
>>> 
>>> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
>>> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
 As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
 not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
 it feasible.
 
 RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
 scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
 
 It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
 operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
 not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
 
 It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
 work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
 a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
 
 I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
 
>> 
>> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
>> @shapeblue
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Wei ZHOU]

+1

-Wei

Rohit Yadav  于2019年5月21日周二 上午11:40写道：

> All,
>
>
> Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so
> far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to
> upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.
>
>
> Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:
>
>
> - Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones
> to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but
> users are discouraged from using them
>
> - Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that
> we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14
> and onwards
>
> - After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging
> scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch
>
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
>
> ** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Rohit Yadav
>
> Software Architect, ShapeBlue
>
> https://www.shapeblue.com
>
>
> 
> From: Erik Weber 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14
>
> CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
> Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
> another ~4-6 months either.
>
> --
> Erik
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
>  wrote:
> >
> > According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
> >
> > CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> > CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
> >
> >
> > +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
> >
> > As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> > any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> > lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> > and how to make any changes to applications.
> >
> > Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> > one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > > it feasible.
> > >
> > > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> > >
> > > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> > > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> > >
> > > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> > >
> > > I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> > >
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

RE: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Paul Angus]

+1 (Binding)

paul.an...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 


-Original Message-
From: Anurag Awasthi  
Sent: 21 May 2019 10:55
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: 
[DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

+1


From: Dag Sonstebo 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 3:22 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: 
[DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

+1

Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue


On 21/05/2019, 10:40, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

All,


Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so 
far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to 
upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.


Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:


- Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones 
to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but users 
are discouraged from using them

- Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that 
we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14 and 
onwards

- After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging 
scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch


[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)


** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.


Thanks.



Regards,

Rohit Yadav

Software Architect, ShapeBlue

https://www.shapeblue.com



From: Erik Weber 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14

CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
another ~4-6 months either.

--
Erik

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
 wrote:
>
> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>
> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>
>
> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>
> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> and how to make any changes to applications.
>
> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>
> Ron
>
> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > it feasible.
> >
> > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >
> > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >
> > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> >
> > I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> >

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue






dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue




anurag.awas...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue
  
 

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Anurag Awasthi]

+1


From: Dag Sonstebo 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 3:22 PM
To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org; dev
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: 
[DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

+1

Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue


On 21/05/2019, 10:40, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

All,


Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so 
far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to 
upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.


Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:


- Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones 
to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but users 
are discouraged from using them

- Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that 
we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14 and 
onwards

- After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging 
scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch


[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)


** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.


Thanks.



Regards,

Rohit Yadav

Software Architect, ShapeBlue

https://www.shapeblue.com



From: Erik Weber 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14

CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
another ~4-6 months either.

--
Erik

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
 wrote:
>
> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>
> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>
>
> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>
> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> and how to make any changes to applications.
>
> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>
> Ron
>
> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > it feasible.
> >
> > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >
> > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >
> > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> >
> > I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> >

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue






dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue




anurag.awas...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: [VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Dag Sonstebo]

+1 

Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue
 

On 21/05/2019, 10:40, "Rohit Yadav"  wrote:

All,


Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so 
far, we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to 
upgrade to el7/el8 due to potential risks.


Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:


- Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones 
to support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but users 
are discouraged from using them

- Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that 
we'll stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14 and 
onwards

- After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging 
scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch


[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)


** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.


Thanks.



Regards,

Rohit Yadav

Software Architect, ShapeBlue

https://www.shapeblue.com



From: Erik Weber 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14

CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
another ~4-6 months either.

--
Erik

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
 wrote:
>
> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>
> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>
>
> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>
> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> and how to make any changes to applications.
>
> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>
> Ron
>
> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > it feasible.
> >
> > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >
> > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >
> > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> >
> > I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> >

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 




dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

[VOTE] Remove el6 support in future CloudStack versions (was Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14)

[Rohit Yadav]

All,


Thank you for your feedback and discussions. From what we've discussed so far, 
we've lazy consensus that nobody wants to use el6 or are limited to upgrade to 
el7/el8 due to potential risks.


Moving forward I put forth the following for voting:


- Next minor/major releases (such as 4.11.3.0, 4.13.0.0) will be last ones to 
support el6 packaging both for the management server and KVM host, but users 
are discouraged from using them

- Next major release (4.13.0.0) will document in its release notes that we'll 
stop supporting centos6/rhel6 packaging in future versions, i.e. 4.14 and 
onwards

- After 4.13.0.0 is released, we will remove el6 related specs, packaging 
scripts etc. from the codebase in the master branch


[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)


** PMCs kindly add binding to your votes, thanks.


Thanks.



Regards,

Rohit Yadav

Software Architect, ShapeBlue

https://www.shapeblue.com



From: Erik Weber 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 19:32
To: dev
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Remove support for el6 packaging in 4.13/4.14

CentOS7 was released 5 years ago, upgrading is long overdue anyway.
Realistically the next CloudStack release won't be out the door for
another ~4-6 months either.

--
Erik

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ron Wheeler
 wrote:
>
> According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
>
> CentOS 6 EOL is 2020
> CentOS 7 EOL is 2024
>
>
> +1 for removing support for CentOS 6.
>
> As Erik pointed out the sites running CentOS6 will have to move soon in
> any event and it is probably better to do it now when there is still a
> lot of current expertise and information available about how to do it
> and how to make any changes to applications.
>
> Upgrading in a project that is under your control is usually easier than
> one forced on you by a security issue or an operational failure.
>
> Ron
>
> On 4/24/19 3:24 AM, Erik Weber wrote:
> > As an operations guy I can understand the want for future updates and
> > not upgrading, but with the release plan of RHEL/CentOS I don't find
> > it feasible.
> >
> > RHEL6 is 8 years old (and is still running kernel 2.6!) and isn't
> > scheduled to be fully EOL until 2024.
> >
> > It is true that upgrading requires some effort (and risk) from
> > operators, but this is work they eventually have to do anyway, so it's
> > not a matter of /if/ they have to do it, but rather when.
> >
> > It is also true that current CloudStack releases should continue to
> > work, it's also possible that someone might back port future fixes to
> > a RHEL6 compatible fork (you're more than welcome to).
> >
> > I'd vote +1 to remove support for el6 packaging.
> >

rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Re: User's project VMs not visible for admin (in UI)

[Nux!]

Ok, thanks guys, I've created an issue for this.

https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/3343

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

- Original Message -
> From: "Wei ZHOU" 
> To: "dev" 
> Sent: Monday, 20 May, 2019 21:14:13
> Subject: Re: User's project VMs not visible for admin (in UI)

> Hi Paul,
> 
> It looks good to me. in additional, we can add a global setting to specify
> the default behavior.
> 
> 
> -Wei
> 
> Paul Angus  于2019年5月20日周一 下午10:09写道：
> 
>> Thanks Wei,
>>
>> That’s what I thought...
>> The same applies to VRs and I think templates/isos/volumes etc ...
>>
>> My thoughts have been that to keep compatibility, these 'list...' API
>> commands should have an extra optional parameter such as includeprojects
>> which defaults to false, we'd have to add a checkbox or something in the UI
>> for users to toggle
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Wei ZHOU 
>> Sent: 20 May 2019 21:02
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: User's project VMs not visible for admin (in UI)
>>
>> As I understand, Nux wants to see all instances (in projects or not in
>> projects) to be listed in default view -> Instances tabs.
>> For now, only instances not in projects are listed.
>> That's what we (as Leaseweb) want to change.
>>
>> -Wei
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Angus  于2019年5月20日周一 下午9:44写道：
>>
>> > q. As admin,  are you looking in the default view project instances
>> > tab for these VMs ?  or in the instances tab when IN the project?
>> >
>> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
>> > www.shapeblue.com
>> > Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK @shapeblue
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Andrija Panic 
>> > Sent: 20 May 2019 17:31
>> > To: dev 
>> > Subject: Re: User's project VMs not visible for admin (in UI)
>> >
>> > Hi Lucian,
>> >
>> > no, it's NOT normal, but YES, this is the current behaviour...
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 18:14, Nux!  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > I've created a new subdomain ROOT/customers and created a user there;
>> > > as user I've created a new project and in it a couple of VMs.
>> > > When I logged back in as admin there was "no data to show", I expected
>> > > the admin should be able to see all VMs from all projects, of all
>> users.
>> > > I can see the VMs in cloudmonkey if I run:
>> > > list virtualmachines projectid=b9a75ec4-82fc-4e88-8733-022df7956143
>> > >
>> > > Is this normal or should I open an issue?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>> > >
>> > > Nux!
>> > > www.nux.ro
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Andrija Panić
>> >