[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @pdube can you review @kishankavala's comments. I want to cut an RC soon, but we have other pending issues in the VR right now which @kiwiflyer, @dmabry and team are working on... --- If your

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user kishankavala commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @swill This is a regression caused by VR refactor. There could be more such issues. I would prefer a fix in the VR script. Current fix is more like reversing the order twice to make it

Re: 4.9+ release

I like this discussion. But, my original question was not about what should the next release number be? i was checking if anyone working on anything big and hence want the next release to be 5.0? ~Rajani On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Daan Hoogland

Re: .install and .postinstall files

> Op 14 juni 2016 om 18:09 schreef Nicolás Vázquez : > > > Thanks Rafael! My bad, it was '.postinst' extension instead of > '.postinstall' > These files are included the dpkg when building the .deb packages. They are executed post-installation when installing the

Re: [DISCUSS] 5.0.0 and 6.0.0

You really like typing long e-mails! :) > Op 15 juni 2016 om 2:39 schreef John Burwell : > > > All, > > We have been discussing whether or not the next release would introduce the > need to increment the major revision number from 4 to 5 (i.e. become 5.0.0). >

Re: [DISCUSS] 5.0.0 and 6.0.0

I don't know if your date projections are any good but +1 to the overall ideas you pose here ,John. As was mentioned in the other thread I would include API refactor in one of the two (5- or 6.0.0) On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:39 AM, John Burwell wrote: > All, > > We

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user kishankavala commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @pdube though the fix looks good, the root of the issue is different. Earlier when bash scripts were used to configure rules on VR, iptable rules for ACLs were inserted (-I option).

Re: 4.9+ release

maybe I should have answered here instead of the other thread :S I am all with John on this. I can not judge the dates but the overall ideas are spot on. I now see the API weren't mentioned in this thread I think they should. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:53 AM, ilya

Re: 4.9+ release

Hi, From my CS starter point of view, I agree with John's comment. I would really like to see the next major version with a code & architecture clean-up, especially producing a code architecture in the direction of the Java9 Jigsaw modularity. It would be sad not to take the next

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user swill commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 I'm not sure what to make of this comment @kishankavala. Is that a LGTM? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user leprechau commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 Looking through the ```git blame``` for this section of code it appears the operator and the ordering of the list was the same as this patch prior to 2013 when the operator was switched.

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user pdube commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @kishankavala I think that the ultimate fix will be in the VR. However, the inversion of the list is fixed with this patch, and does not require a VR update. This is a good enough fix for now, as

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user kishankavala commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @leprechau ACL rule ordering was introduced in 2013 in ACS 4.2. Since 4.2 release, the order was never changed. Older commit your are referring to, was during development phase of 4.2.

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user kishankavala commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @pdube Current fix is good enough. I'm only concerned about more such issues in VR. can you please create a tracking bug for VR fix and make a note that this is a regression? --- If

[GitHub] cloudstack issue #1581: CLOUDSTACK-9404 Fixed ordering of network ACL rules ...

Github user leprechau commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1581 @kishankavala Understood, thank you for the explanation. The long history of the project makes digging into some of these things difficult. --- If your project is set up for it, you can

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1592: CLOUDSTACK-9416 : (ACS master GUI) Enabling S...

GitHub user prashanthvarma opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1592 CLOUDSTACK-9416 : (ACS master GUI) Enabling Static NAT on an associated Public IP to one of the NICs (networks) of a multi-NIC VM fails due to a wrong (default) Guest VM IP being selected

Re: .install and .postinstall files

Thanks Wido! 2016-06-15 4:29 GMT-03:00 Wido den Hollander : > > > Op 14 juni 2016 om 18:09 schreef Nicolás Vázquez < > nicovazque...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > Thanks Rafael! My bad, it was '.postinst' extension instead of > > '.postinstall' > > > > These files are included the dpkg

Re: CloudStack 4.8.0 with LXC - LibvirtException: unsupported configuration: System lacks NETNS support

Could this be related to the following bug? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1083030 On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Cloud List wrote: > Dear all, > > Anyone implemented LXC on CloudStack before and can provide some advice? > Documentation is a bit limited on

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request #1593: CLOUDSTACK-9417: Usage module refactoring

GitHub user nvazquez opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1593 CLOUDSTACK-9417: Usage module refactoring ### Introduction Usage sanity check file was not been updated on sanity check. It is proposed: * New usage folder

Re: Release-Management Question about New API Plug-in

just do it. And as a committer make it on a branch in the apache repo, I'd say. As a escrow to your customer ;) On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote: > Hi, > > > This is mainly a release-management question, but - of course - anyone who > knows,

Release-Management Question about New API Plug-in

Hi, This is mainly a release-management question, but - of course - anyone who knows, please feel free to comment. I have been developing a new API plug-in for a customer. The customer is using CloudStack 4.6. I'd like to contribute the plug-in to our official repo, but I'm wondering if I