On 25 February 2013 07:43, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Prasanna Santhanam wrote:
>> Reverted (1b922e8) the earlier fix for a better commit later.
>
> Prasanna, in the smoke test for vm expunge, we should remove the hard
> coded 20 mins as well?
>
> For the revert, Anthon
e the same VMs, which causes expunge
>> > fail.
>> >
>> > I think you can remove the hacker, and reopen the bug.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-----
>> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.c
t; fail.
>> >
>> > I think you can remove the hacker, and reopen the bug.
>> >
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 201
e
> > fail.
> >
> > I think you can remove the hacker, and reopen the bug.
> >
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 PM
>
t;> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Change in integration test for javelin
>>
>> Anthony can comment more on, he checked in that code to avoid some race
&g
emove the hacker, and reopen the bug.
Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Change in integ
Anthony can comment more on, he checked in that code to avoid some race
conditions in expunge VM.
-min
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 25, 2013, at 7:59 PM, "David Nalley" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM, prasanna wrote:
>> I know this code exists and it fails all the expunge tests inter
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:57 PM, prasanna wrote:
> I know this code exists and it fails all the expunge tests internally.
> Do you know why it exists? Why should expunge be > 600 always? Seems
> like we're overriding the global setting that the admin sets and
> without log/warning.
I concur - no
I know this code exists and it fails all the expunge tests internally.
Do you know why it exists? Why should expunge be > 600 always? Seems
like we're overriding the global setting that the admin sets and
without log/warning.
On 26 January 2013 07:16, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> Because of this code in
