Thanks! --Colin
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Brady Allen Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > > Since this wont be fixed for Carbon, I added info about it to the SFC > Carbon release notes (which havent been merged yet): > > https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/57284 > > Regards, > > Brady > > -----Original Message----- > *From*: Colin Dixon <[email protected] > <colin%20dixon%20%[email protected]%3e>> > *To*: Robert Varga <[email protected] <robert%20varga%20%[email protected]%3e>> > *Cc*: Brady Allen Johnson <[email protected] > <brady%20allen%20johnson%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <groupbasedpolicy-dev@lists. > opendaylight.org > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e>>, > [email protected] <[email protected] > <%[email protected]%22%20%[email protected]%3e> > > > *Subject*: Re: [sfc-dev] GROUPBASEDPOLICY SFC Carbon Blocker Bug > *Date*: Mon, 22 May 2017 10:05:06 -0400 > > I that case, I think that this is a valid RC3 build: > https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/autorelease/ > job/autorelease-release-carbon/327/ > > I'll let An deal with the formalities when he's conscious and we have the > Carbon release sync in just under an hour. > > --Colin > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 22/05/17 15:36, Colin Dixon wrote: > > Based on the bug, I'd say that it passes distribution check because it's > > a feature compatibility error. Even SFT wouldn't have caught it unless > > there's a feature that pulls in both SFC and VBD at the same time and I > > don't think there is. > > > > At this point, I think we either need somebody to get the patch to > > verify, cherry-picked and +2ed or we need to make the call that this > > isn't a critical feature and could be fixed in SR1. Given the nature of > > where we are, I'm inclined to say that option 2 is become more likely by > > the hour without a response from somebody who can actually drive the fix. > > I think we can postpone it -- the patch is an attempt at fixing the > problem, but I think it was just a first stab will follow-up patches > needed afterwards... > > Bye, > Robert > > > >
_______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
