Github user mike-tutkowski commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1671
Thank you, Rajani!
On Sep 12, 2016, at 11:41 PM, Rajani Karuturi
> wrote:
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1671
@mike-tutkowski I started our internal CI run on this to run the smoke test
suite. It will post the results here.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell Thanks for the info on bylaws. Its not the first time we are
discussing on how we are operating since 4.6. I understood that this is never
going to conclude in any other way and I
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1560
@serg38 the git-pr script is not working properly for me. I will debug
further tomorrow.
@rafaelweingartner do you mind doing the merge honors?
---
If your project is set up for it,
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1651
@PaulAngus @jburwell Can we squash commits and merge this one? This will
allow us to include 5 more integration test results for other PRs
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1661
LGTM for the code review
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and
At this point, I think we are still throwing around ideas. If you have
links to more options you think we should have on the table, please add
them to the discussion. :)
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1602
Just realized I hadn't re-reviewed. LGTM for code.
---
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 project does not
Have we thought of other SDx routers such as pfsense? Its licensed under the
BSD license and is well maintained.
-Original Message-
From: williamstev...@gmail.com [mailto:williamstev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Will Stevens
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:16 PM
To:
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1560
@serg38 great work.
It seems that we already have reviewed this one, and executed tests.
I will merge this PR tomorrow if no one objects.
---
If your project is set up for it,
You have probably looked into this more than I have Rene.
I am not sure there existed a time when the VR was ever "great". In my
eyes, the core ACS dev team should not be building and managing its own
VR. I feel like that is a liability because the subset of developers who
are proficient in
Hi
On 09/12/2016 10:20 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> *Disclaimer:* This is a thought experiment and should be treated as such.
> Please weigh in with the good and bad of this idea...
>
> A couple of us have been discussing the idea of potentially replacing the
> ACS VR with the VyOS [1] (Open Source
John,
When you say to decompose the services to multiple containers? Where do you
envision the containers be running? Surely, they must be running in some VM
running on top of the hypervisor otherwise you would not be able to support
all hypervisors. Now the question is, does each individual
Those are fair points John. I was going down the thought process of "if we
have a VR, let's use an existing proven technology and not build our own".
I think ACS needs an easy-to-use, out-of-the box default which anyone can
use without having to think too much about it. It would be great if it
Will,
Typo. “application model” was meant to be “appliance model”.
Thanks,
-John
>
john.burw...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:35 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>
> Will,
>
>
Will,
I agree that we need to replace the VR, but I am not convinced that continuing
with the notion of a monolithic application model is a best direction. The
problem with the current model is that it lacks flexibility. Some users only
need to deploy DHCP and DNS across a zone where others
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1560
@rafaelweingartner @jburwell @karuturi Integration tests passed after merge
conflict resolution
test DeployVM in anti-affinity groups for project ... === TestName:
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1602
@karuturi @jburwell @rafaelweingartner Please disregard. We are still
running tests for this PR
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
*Disclaimer:* This is a thought experiment and should be treated as such.
Please weigh in with the good and bad of this idea...
A couple of us have been discussing the idea of potentially replacing the
ACS VR with the VyOS [1] (Open Source Vyatta VM). There may be a license
issue because I think
@jburwell This looks like an awesome system which will improve ACS stability
big time. Let me know if we can assist in any way.
On 9/12/16, 12:42 PM, "John Burwell" wrote:
Sergey,
We are working on a full automated build pipeline that will test
Sergey,
We are working on a full automated build pipeline that will test against a wide
range of configurations. Ideally, the pipeline will work as follows:
1. PR is submitted -> the PR is built, unit tested, and run through static
analysis. Smoke tests are run on a matrix of
Thanks for this John.
Maybe link to the release schedule as well so people know when branches
will expect to be frozen as well.
*Will STEVENS*
Lead Developer
*CloudOps* *| *Cloud Solutions Experts
420 rue Guy *|* Montreal *|* Quebec *|* H3J 1S6
w cloudops.com *|* tw @CloudOps_
On Mon, Sep 12,
@swill @jburwell From my, non-committer, point of view introducing fully
automated test system integrated with PR submission and leveraging complete
list of supported hypervisors is the key to stability. I really like
blueorangutain idea and if this can be brought back and also cover full set
We could fix the issue by generating new pairs of ssh keys. Here the
procedure we applied:
1) Stop Management Server
2) Delete SSH Keys in mysql Database:
delete from configuration where name = "ssh.publickey" ;
delete from configuration where name = "ssh.privatekey" ;
3) Delete the SSH Keys
All,
There appears to be some confusion around who can merge a PR and when it should
occur. Section 2.3 of bylaws [1] are very clear, any committer may commit code
to any branch. As a community, we have agreed that non-security contributions
should be submitted as a PR, and that a PR must
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell ok cool. I will try to start getting my CI run against master
every week to help make sure that master is happy. Hopefully that will help as
well. :)
Alright, I think we
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1602
@karuturi @jburwell @rafaelweingartner Can you check if this PR can be
merged?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well.
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@swill where hardware are being varies by PR. In some cases, we have
people running them in their labs and reporting results. Other cases, it's
blueorangatan going through ShapeBlue Jenkins
Github user serg38 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1602
LGTM for testing
[root@ussarlabcsmgt41 MarvinLogs]# cat
/tmp//MarvinLogs/test_volumes_CP3Z7R/results.txt
test DeployVM in anti-affinity groups for project ... === TestName:
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell ok cool. I didn't realize that we had Marvin tests running
against hardware to validate the PRs. Is it just Travis using the simulator or
do we have real hardware CI being run? Is
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@swill other than verifying that the proper review has been done and a
reasonable set of Marvin test cases have been run on the appropriate platforms,
what else are you expecting?
---
If
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell I feel like we are not discussing the same thing. I understand
where you are coming from regarding the operational merging of PRs and I don't
disagree with you. 2 LGTM with a 1 test
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@swill the RM is still maintaining the stability of master. I check that
all non-security merges meet the criteria we have laid out. If/when I find one
that does not, I will roll it back,
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell since 4.6 we have effectively had the RM merge everything. I am
not saying that is required, or even specified anywhere, but the reason we have
been doing that was because the RM was
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@swill we never had a policy that only release managers could merge. Remi
was active that he typically merged PRs before anyone else had a chance. The
[release
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell we have not been operating that way since 4.6 for a reason. I
understand it is that way in the bylaws, but the bylaws are not currently
written to protect the stability of master. How
Github user jburwell commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@karuturi there is no discussion to be had. According to our bylaws,
committers have the right to commit to any branch. Period. Full stop. If you
would like to change it, propose a change
Github user nnesic commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1624#discussion_r78407479
--- Diff: server/src/com/cloud/user/AccountManagerImpl.java ---
@@ -761,6 +774,17 @@ protected boolean cleanupAccount(AccountVO account,
long
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@karuturi no worries, I know the comment was not related to this specific
PR and is related to the larger topic of how we are currently handling merge
policy.
I have been a bit MIA for
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@swill sorry to hijack. This is not a -1 for you to commit. Please go
ahead. I just want to make it clear that we as a community never concluded on
that discussion. But, given how things are
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell & @karuturi please advise. This PR should be ready to be
merged...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If
Github user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
@jburwell we didnt conclude on that discussion. Its not the policy as of
now.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well.
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1658
I rebased against the current master. I will merge this as soon as the
status comes back green...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on
Hi Rohit
Finally we had some time to dig deeper into this issue. The /bin/bash
issue was a typo on our side, sorry!
System VM was destroyed/recreated several times.
But something with the ssh keys is still wrong. The KVM is still asking
for the pass phrase when ssh into system vms.
*#
Github user kiwiflyer commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/872
Yeah, I think this one is dead unless it gets reworked into a new PR. We
might be able to help a bit on this one as well.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and
Github user swill commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/872
Given the lack of response, I am guessing I should just clone the work from
this PR into my own branch and open a new PR once I have everything working...
---
If your project is set up for it,
Thanks
Yeah, I wasn't sure if you just experienced it on reboot or if sometimes when
setting up your cloud you encountered this issue, as well (like 9144).
From: ned dogg
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 6:08 AM
To:
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/798
@nvazquez I have the impression that @maneesha-p is not working with ACS
anymore.
I guess you can go ahead and proper code this changes into a PR to be
merged into master. If
ok, so your SSVM is just cycling constantly, correct?
Can you pull the logs from
/var/log/cloudstack/management/management-server.log? Also, please turn on
debug on logging on your hosts (sed -i 's/INFO/DEBUG/g'
/etc/cloudstack/agent/log4j-cloud.xml) and restart your agents. Please grab
Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1651
@jburwell me too ;)
I like the idea of a single commit with a commit message of 80 characters,
and then a paragraph description, bullets or both that describe the whole work
that
Hi Simon,
I use Ubuntu 14.04 with cloudstack 4.6 installed. And I'm using a KVM
hypervisor. I also set up a basic zone.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Simon Weller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you tell us more about your environment?
>
> What hypervisor are you using? Is this a
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
---
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 project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Github user abhinandanprateek commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
@bvbharatk thanks for the update if possible file a jira ticket for this
issue.
I just want to note that this has nothing to do with current PR which
looks good.
---
If
Github user bvbharatk commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
@abhinandanprateek
Hi Abhi,
This test is failing because of test case clean up issues. Blow are the log
messages from marvin
Job failed: {jobprocstatus : 0, created :
Github user abhinandanprateek commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
@karuturi Do we know why test_non_contigiousvlan.py is failing ?
---
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 user karuturi commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
the failing test(test_non_contigiousvlan.py) is not related to the PR.
The changes looks good and are ready to merge with required LGTMs and tests.
@bvbharat Can you move the sql to
Github user bvbharatk commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/866
### ACS CI BVT Run
**Sumarry:**
Build Number 89
Hypervisor xenserver
NetworkType Advanced
Passed=102
Failed=1
Skipped=4
_Link to logs Folder (search
58 matches
Mail list logo