Re: 4.6 release

.ro> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we do need to mention this in the notes, if people have the >>>>>> "awsapi" package installed, they should remove it, or we should >> gracefu

Re: 4.6 release

have it installed, or do i > >>>>> misunderstand it? > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Erik > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > >>>>

Re: 4.6 release

ack.apache.org, "Remi Bergsma" < > rberg...@schubergphilis.com>, "Pierre-Luc Dion" <pd...@cloudops.com> > > Sent: Monday, 23 November, 2015 09:53:10 > > Subject: Re: 4.6 release > > >> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Go

Re: 4.6 release

om: "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, "Remi Bergsma" < >> rberg...@schubergphilis.com>, "Pierre-Luc Dion" <pd...@cloudops.com> >> > Sent: Monday, 23 November, 2015 09:53:

Re: 4.6 release

Delta quadrant using Borg technology! >>> >>> Nux! >>> www.nux.ro >>> >>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org, "Remi B

Re: 4.6 release

t;awsapi" package installed, they should remove it, or we should gracefully >>>> "obsolete" it from the RPM packaging. >>>> >>>> I had to manually "rpm -e --nodeps cloudstack-awsapi" to avoid conflicts, >>>> but otherwise the upgrad

Re: 4.6 release

y should remove it, or we should > gracefully > >>>> "obsolete" it from the RPM packaging. > >>>> > >>>> I had to manually "rpm -e --nodeps cloudstack-awsapi" to avoid > conflicts, > >>>> but otherwise the upgrad

Re: 4.6 release

> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Talking about 4.6 > > There seems to be an issue when people upgrade from 4.5.2 and the awsapi > package is missing. > Ping on this. Before me make the 4.6 release ann

Re: 4.6 release

om>, > "Pierre-Luc Dion" <pd...@cloudops.com> > Sent: Monday, 23 November, 2015 09:53:10 > Subject: Re: 4.6 release >> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:51 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Talking about 4.6 >> >> There seems t

Re: 4.6 release

tect >> ShapeBlue Ltd >> S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: @CloudyAngus >> paul.an...@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue >> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS >> >> >> >> >> --

Re: 4.6 release

om | Twitter:@shapeblue > ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:56 AM > To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >

Re: 4.6 release

Paul, this is not helpful. please supply changes for what you would like to see instead so we can discuss. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Paul Angus wrote: > Guys, > > > > I’m out and about this morning, but I’ve noticed that the release notes > state that baseurl

Re: 4.6 release

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Paul Angus wrote: > Which version (noredist or oss) have the packages on cloudstack.apt-get.eu > been built with? > ​these used to be build noredist. Has anything changed?​ I think we must replace them if it has. -- Daan

RE: 4.6 release

dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Subject: Re: 4.6 release Paul, this is not helpful. please supply changes for what you would like to see instead so we can discuss. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Paul Angus <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > Guys, > > > > I’m out and about thi

4.6 release

Guys, I'm out and about this morning, but I've noticed that the release notes state that baseurl for 4.6 is http://cloudstack.apt-get.eu/rhel/4.5/ And that somewhat buried in the vmware install information is the fact that the apt-get repo only includes the oss build. 1. I fundamentally

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071 --- 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] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#issuecomment-157168301 LGTM: ``` nosetests --with-marvin --marvin-config=${marvinCfg} -s -a tags=advanced,required_hardware=true \ component/test_vpc_redundant.py \

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#issuecomment-157169270 @DaanHoogland @wilderrodrigues @miguelaferreira Can either of you review so we can merge this and open master for new features? --- If your project is set up

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user wilderrodrigues commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#issuecomment-157286509 Hi @remibergsma and @karuturi Went through the code, which was quite straight forward. Based on that, this PR LGTM :+1: Cheers,

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user remibergsma commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#issuecomment-156980076 Thanks @karuturi will give it a test-drive soon! --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user karuturi commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#discussion_r44907513 --- Diff: build/replace.properties --- @@ -26,4 +26,4 @@ AGENTLOG=logs/agent.log MSMNTDIR=/mnt COMPONENTS-SPEC=components.xml

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

GitHub user karuturi opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071 Merge 4.6 release branch to master Initial merge of 4.6 to master ignored pom.xml version number changes and changes to debian/changelog and engine/schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user remibergsma commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#discussion_r44907228 --- Diff: build/replace.properties --- @@ -26,4 +26,4 @@ AGENTLOG=logs/agent.log MSMNTDIR=/mnt COMPONENTS-SPEC=components.xml

[GitHub] cloudstack pull request: Merge 4.6 release branch to master

Github user DaanHoogland commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1071#issuecomment-157299325 Had a look yesterday and lgtm, didn't want to comment untill I saw the test results. (It seemed so small ;) --- If your project is set up for it, you can

Re: 4.6 release

ev@cloudstack.apache.org>" Subject: Re: 4.6 release Ladies & Gents, I’ve just tried installing the current 4.6 from Jenkins on CentOS 7 it fails to start the management service completely (Failed at step EXEC spawning /usr/sbin/tomcat-sysd: No such file or directory) I’ve updated h

Re: 4.6 release

Ladies & Gents, I've just tried installing the current 4.6 from Jenkins on CentOS 7 it fails to start the management service completely (Failed at step EXEC spawning /usr/sbin/tomcat-sysd: No such file or directory) I've updated https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8812 as CentOS

Re: 4.6 release

to knock off blockers in this week and create RC next week. ~Rajani On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Rajani Karuturi <raj...@apache.org> wrote: > (resending in plain text) > > Thanks Boris(@borisroman) for fixing 3 blockers. > > We now have 7 blockers for th

Re: 4.6 release

(resending in plain text) Thanks Boris(@borisroman) for fixing 3 blockers. We now have 7 blockers for the 4.6 release https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765 Key Summary Assignee Creator CLOUDSTACK-8881[Blocker] PF , static nat , LB , egress

Re: 4.6 release

Thanks Boris(@borisroman) for fixing 3 blockers. We now have 7 blockers for the 4.6 release https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765 T Key P Summary Assignee Creator [image: Bug] <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8881> CLOUDSTACK-8881

[PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

e cannot do a RC without > properly fixing them. > > > If you have some time, please: > > > Look at the 4.6 release dashboard: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765 > > > Fix one of the blockers (or critical issues): > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in experimenting this for let’s say 2-4 weeks; at worst we would have blocked people from merging new features etc. Remi/Rajani - do you think we can pull this off (fix blockers and do a 4.6.0 release) in next 2-4 weeks? On

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

Then we create a 4.6.0 branch, fix all of it and allow people to continue to merge broken code on master. Once we merge 4.6 back to master, most probably the 4.6 stuff won’t work anymore. I have seen it before. I would still say +1 for the freeze and suggest that we get the contributors

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

ache.org>" Date: Wednesday 16 September 2015 10:07 To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in experimenting this for let’s say 2

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

> On Sep 16, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rohit Yadav > wrote: > >> 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to >> get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

I think you are being an optimist saying 2-4 weeks but I second the attempt. +1 On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > Based on some discussion from slack, I think there is no harm in > experimenting this for let’s say 2-4 weeks; at worst we would have

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

router related and we feel we cannot do a RC without properly fixing them. If you have some time, please: Look at the 4.6 release dashboard: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765 Fix one of the blockers (or critical issues): https://issues.apache.org/jira

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

ill be > marked > > blocker as well. This means we'll have 6-8 blocker issues to resolve. > Most > > of them are virtual router related and we feel we cannot do a RC without > > properly fixing them. > > > > > > If you have some time, please: > > > > &

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

nt master. In case still broken, they will be marked blocker as well. This means we'll have 6-8 blocker issues to resolve. Most of them are virtual router related and we feel we cannot do a RC without properly fixing them. If you have some time, please: Look at the 4.6 release dashboard: https

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to > get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a case-by-case basis. > > > -1 -ish > What you’re effectively saying is to freeze/block master

Re: [PROPOSAL] stable master and 4.6 release

On 16-Sep-2015, at 11:47 am, Rajani Karuturi > wrote: Here is what we propose: 1. Only BLOCKER fixes to master. If there's something else that needs to get in, it can be discussed with the RMs on a case-by-case basis. -1 -ish What you’re effectively

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help We can do this proposal

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Wilder Rodrigues wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com wrote: Hi guys, I hope that’s not too late to react on this one. Having 6 RMs seems a bit too much for me. For PRs containing a few lines of code, just bug fixes or changing maven files, python, sh, etc it might

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On May 13, 2015, at 6:07 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Wilder Rodrigues wrodrig...@schubergphilis.com wrote: Hi guys, I hope that’s not too late to react on this one. Having 6 RMs seems a bit too much for me. For PRs containing a few lines of

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

I never intended for all 6 RM to be involved in every commit. Just to have 6 in order to spread the load. I just want at least two of them to verify each merge. Op wo 13 mei 2015 om 18:32 schreef sebgoa run...@gmail.com: On May 13, 2015, at 6:07 PM, David Nalley da...@gnsa.us wrote: On Wed,

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help We can

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help We can do

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

releases cycle. If we consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

(start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

releases cycle. If we consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would not be worse than 4.5. If we can improve a bit on the QA then we win. Plus I think a different commit model will help a lot in quality. Marcus: are you preparing a proposal on this? wiki page? I can help We can

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

yes, you do :) Op vr 1 mei 2015 om 05:00 schreef Abhinandan Prateek abhinandan.prat...@shapeblue.com: Guys, Do I see a QACloud in works, something in line with devcloud but with a bigger collection of Hypervisors + marvin ? If we can bundle these Hypervisors and QA automation then

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA does not improve, 4.6 would

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

and git flow; move into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can do all that starting in 4.6, I'm all for it! Is there really a difference between creating a 4.6 and doing what you say, and tagging master (start) and doing it on master leading to 4.6 release ? Assuming the QA

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Marcus shadow...@gmail.com wrote: After reviewing the history as mentioned by Daan, unless we propose and vote on a newer workflow model I think the best we can do is to simply be more strict about commits to master. They all need to be merges that have been

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:49 PM, Marcus shadow...@gmail.com wrote: After reviewing the history as mentioned by Daan, unless we propose and vote on a newer workflow model I think the best we can do is to simply be more

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Guys, Do I see a QACloud in works, something in line with devcloud but with a bigger collection of Hypervisors + marvin ? If we can bundle these Hypervisors and QA automation then effectively we can have many more people join our QA effort. On 29-Apr-2015, at 9:24 pm, Rohit Yadav

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Hi, In my mind it was kind of making more sense to start by keeping 4.6 into a separate branch, enforce pull-requests and deploy the CI. smaller step but faster result, and from there, once we get stable with the CI and git flow; move into master, do fastest releases cycle. If we consider we can

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Hi Remi, Thanks. Sure we can work together on this, I guess you would be running KVM/XenServer on KVM. Ping me if you need help on running ESX 5.x on KVM as it requires a patched qemu system binary (prebuilt debs here http://people.apache.org/~bhaisaab/qemu). If these nested hosts are managed

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

After reviewing the history as mentioned by Daan, unless we propose and vote on a newer workflow model I think the best we can do is to simply be more strict about commits to master. They all need to be merges that have been tested against master before merge. This will in theory make master more

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Hi Rohit, Nice work! I agree we need an environment that does run on something else than the local machine, as we need more horse power. We worked on something similar, where we have a cluster of KVM controlled by CloudStack in our Employee Cloud and spin large VMs running CentOS 7.1 (we use

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

own github, pushes to your own branch will run through Travis as well. best, Raja -Original Message- From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:14 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management On Apr 17

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

regards, Swen Brüseke -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Simon Weller [mailto:swel...@ena.com] Gesendet: Montag, 20. April 2015 15:24 An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management From: Sebastien Goasguen run

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Rohit Any headway on ESX 5.5? I've done this many times before using cloudstack and esx, but i was using esx as parent hypervisor. The challenge for me was being able to automatically deploy and configure the vSphere + ESXi env. I managed to get the whole flow working with bash script,

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Hi Ilya, In short - to run ESX and other hypervisors (Xen, KVM, OVM3, HyperV etc) on KVM you need to; - use patched qemu (tested to work on both Ubuntu 14.04 and 15.04 x64, I’m waiting for Fedora 22 to test it on F22 as well), you may install the pre-built debs or build/install qemu from

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Marcus, I think we decided to take small steps in the direction of something resambling git-workflow instead of adopting it as a standard. merging branches for fixes and features was one of those steps. We had a pre-vote discussion on git-flow and it was rejected as such. That shouldn't stop us

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Rohit, the issues you mention are not as painful if we release in a two week schedule as the period of creating a fix to seeing it in a release will be shorter. Some releases will be broken for some people, I don't think we can prevent this. The target we are aiming for is to big to cover it

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

I think we need to have a faster release management to speed up process in general, and for that I propose that we have at least two co-pilots for the release manager who would support them with things like reviewing/merging patches, creating RC candidates etc whenever necessary. Having only

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Daan, On 24-Apr-2015, at 3:53 pm, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com wrote: Rohit, the issues you mention are not as painful if we release in a two week schedule as the period of creating a fix to seeing it in a release will be shorter. Some releases will be broken for some people, I

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Rohit Yadav rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com wrote: Daan, On 24-Apr-2015, at 3:53 pm, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com wrote: Rohit, the issues you mention are not as painful if we release in a two week schedule as the period of creating a fix to seeing it in a

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Before I rough draft anything, I just wanted to ask if we had voted on moving to git-workflow, and dropping the multiple release branch design. This seems like a significant change, and while good in many ways, it also seems that many users are seeking for point releases to their pet version and

RE: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 1:14 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Raja Pullela raja.pull...@citrix.com wrote: +1 for the Some people (I'm part of them) are concerned on our current way of supporting and back porting

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

From: Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:50 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Marcus shadow...@gmail.com wrote: Have they diverged that much? Due

AW: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

] Gesendet: Montag, 20. April 2015 15:24 An: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management From: Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 2:50 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Apr 18, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Marcus shadow...@gmail.com wrote: Have they diverged that much? Due to cherry-picking, I guess. Otherwise you should be able to do it cleanly. There's a good opportunity to do this next release. Instead of creating a release branch, we freeze master and start

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Have they diverged that much? Due to cherry-picking, I guess. Otherwise you should be able to do it cleanly. There's a good opportunity to do this next release. Instead of creating a release branch, we freeze master and start creating dev branches. On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Daan Hoogland

RE: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

coverage, that will be super! Thanks, Raja -Original Message- From: Marcus [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:35 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code I know this is just

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion pd...@cloudops.com wrote: Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release management targeting the next 4.6 releases. Quick bullet point discussions: ideas to change release planning - Plugin contribution is

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 4:35 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code I know this is just an example, but at least on KVM side this is no longer true. Previously you had to implement a KVM

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Sebastien Goasguen run...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 17, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Pierre-Luc Dion pd...@cloudops.com wrote: Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release management targeting the next 4.6 releases. Quick bullet point

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Well, would we just swap the last release branch with master? Master is the dev branch, and the last release is really what we have as a stable branch. On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Daan Hoogland daan.hoogl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Sebastien Goasguen

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

We heavily invested in code now on master. Not looking forward to backporting that. mobile dev with bilingual spelling checker used (read at your own risk) Op 17 apr. 2015 21:02 schreef Marcus shadow...@gmail.com: Well, would we just swap the last release branch with master? Master is the dev

[DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

Today during the CloudStackdays we did a round table about Release management targeting the next 4.6 releases. Quick bullet point discussions: ideas to change release planning - Plugin contribution is complicated because often a new plugin involve change on the core: - ex:

Re: [DISCUSS] 4.6 release management

storage plugin involve changes on Hypervisor code I know this is just an example, but at least on KVM side this is no longer true. Previously you had to implement a KVM-specific 'StorageAdaptor' that would run on the hypervisor, and register that with the agent code, but Mike and I added some