1. z.archive.alto-dev@lists.opendaylight.org
  2. Messages
   Date   
Re: [alto] Interop test

Wendy Roome <w.roome@...>
 

I suggest a slightly different approach: we specify the numerical values for routingcost & hopcount. Then let each server decide whether it wants to present numerical or ordinal versions. The only requirement is that a server MUST provide a routingcost cost map, either numerical or ordinal. Servers can provide whatever additional resources they want, and clients can fetch & validate any resources they recognize.

We do not define ordinal values, but allow servers to assign whatever values they want as long as the ordering is consistent with the numerical values we specify. That is sufficient to allow a client to verify the ordinal values.

- Wendy Roome

From: Hans Seidel <hseidel@...>
Date: Tue, June 2, 2015 at 03:00
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@...>
Cc: Wendy Roome <w.roome@...>, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <Lyle.T.Bertz@...>, "alto-dev@..." <alto-dev@...>, "alto@..." <alto@...>
Subject: Re: [alto] Interop test

On 29.05.2015 20:24, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Wendy Roome <w.roome@...> wrote:
I thought RFC 7285 required order-consistency between numerical & ordinal modes for the same metric. But I cannot find that requirement. Too bad! I would have added that if I realized it wasn't there.

I remembered that the removal of the consistency requirement was a conscious decision, not an omission, to reduce the load of consistency checking. I buy your point below of a server supporting only one, in the sense of providing the maximum allowed by the privacy concern.

Regarding supporting both in the interop, I will be happy to wait a bit to hear others' opinions.
I agree that providing both numerical and ordinal mode for the same cost metric makes little sense from a real world perspective. For the interop, I think both should be covered. Since Wendy already proposed cost maps for routingcost and hopcount in her initial mail, I suggest providing a numerical cost map for one metric and an ordinal for the other. 

Hans
Re: [alto] Interop test

郭华明 <guohuaming@...>
 

I think that we just specify the numerical & ordinal values for routingcost cost map, then let each server decide whether it wants to present numerical or ordinal versions. The hopcount cost map is no need to specify, as it is not a MUST in
RFC 7285.


-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Wendy Roome" <w.roome@...>
发送时间:2015-06-02 22:17:46 (星期二)
收件人: "Hans Seidel" <hseidel@...>, "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@...>
抄送: "alto-dev@..." <alto-dev@...>, "alto@..." <alto@...>
主题: Re: [alto] Interop test

I suggest a slightly different approach: we specify the numerical values for routingcost & hopcount. Then let each server decide whether it wants to present numerical or ordinal versions. The only requirement is that a server MUST provide a routingcost cost map, either numerical or ordinal. Servers can provide whatever additional resources they want, and clients can fetch & validate any resources they recognize.

We do not define ordinal values, but allow servers to assign whatever values they want as long as the ordering is consistent with the numerical values we specify. That is sufficient to allow a client to verify the ordinal values.

- Wendy Roome

From: Hans Seidel <hseidel@...>
Date: Tue, June 2, 2015 at 03:00
To: "Y. Richard Yang" <yry@...>
Cc: Wendy Roome <w.roome@...>, "Bertz, Lyle T [CTO]" <Lyle.T.Bertz@...>, "alto-dev@..." <alto-dev@...>, "alto@..." <alto@...>
Subject: Re: [alto] Interop test

On 29.05.2015 20:24, Y. Richard Yang wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015, Wendy Roome <w.roome@...> wrote:
I thought RFC 7285 required order-consistency between numerical & ordinal modes for the same metric. But I cannot find that requirement. Too bad! I would have added that if I realized it wasn't there.

I remembered that the removal of the consistency requirement was a conscious decision, not an omission, to reduce the load of consistency checking. I buy your point below of a server supporting only one, in the sense of providing the maximum allowed by the privacy concern.

Regarding supporting both in the interop, I will be happy to wait a bit to hear others' opinions.
I agree that providing both numerical and ordinal mode for the same cost metric makes little sense from a real world perspective. For the interop, I think both should be covered. Since Wendy already proposed cost maps for routingcost and hopcount in her initial mail, I suggest providing a numerical cost map for one metric and an ordinal for the other. 

Hans

--
----------------
Best!


Huaming Guo

China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT)

No.36 A Nanlishi Road, Xicheng District, Beijing 100037, China
ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Gao Kai
 

20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:

Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Gao Kai
 

That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai

On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:

A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: [integration-dev] Integration master bump

Y. Richard Yang
 

George,

Thanks for the note. Kai and I will work with Robert to merge it.

Thanks!

Richard

_____________________________

From: George Zhao <george.y.zhao@...>
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2015 5:42 AM
Subject: RE: [integration-dev] Integration master bump
To: Robert Varga <nite@...>, Thanh Ha <thanh.ha@...>, release <release@...>, Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...>, <yry@...>
Cc: 'integration-dev@...' (integration-dev@...) (integration-dev@...) <integration-dev@...>


Hi Richard,

Could you take a look at this patch and work with Robert to merge it.

Thanks,
George

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:nite@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Luis Gomez; release; George Zhao; Thanh Ha
Cc: 'integration-dev@...' (integration-dev@...) (integration-dev@...)
Subject: Re: [integration-dev] Integration master bump

On 06/06/2015 04:01 AM, Luis Gomez wrote:
> - alto: wrong ietf-topology version

https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/22030 fixes that.

Bye,
Robert
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).

--Colin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

I fixed that problem in patch set 6:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/6

I also noted that in patch set 5 you again introduced the dependency on this commit:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=docs.git;a=commit;h=ac79bb7af566c127327a37c95405273489591683

I've fixed it in patch set 6.

My recommendation when amending a patch set is to start from the exact patch set. You can do that by using either "git review" (my preference) or by using the various download links on the top right of the gerrit link. That should avoid introducing false dependencies.

There's information on using git review to do this here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).

--Colin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

It looks like you created two patches:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/22316/
depends on the existing one:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/

If you want, I can flatten the two into 20762 and abandon 22316 or you can do that. If you're having trouble getting git to do what you want, I'm happy to try to get on a Google hangout or IRC with you to help.

--Colin

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
I fixed that problem in patch set 6:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/6

I also noted that in patch set 5 you again introduced the dependency on this commit:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=docs.git;a=commit;h=ac79bb7af566c127327a37c95405273489591683

I've fixed it in patch set 6.

My recommendation when amending a patch set is to start from the exact patch set. You can do that by using either "git review" (my preference) or by using the various download links on the top right of the gerrit link. That should avoid introducing false dependencies.

There's information on using git review to do this here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).

--Colin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Gao Kai
 

Sorry I forgot to reset the change-Id.

I'll abandon 22316 and resubmit the patch to 20762 asap.

--Kai

On 12/06/15 04:21, Colin Dixon wrote:

It looks like you created two patches:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/22316/
depends on the existing one:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/

If you want, I can flatten the two into 20762 and abandon 22316 or you can do that. If you're having trouble getting git to do what you want, I'm happy to try to get on a Google hangout or IRC with you to help.

--Colin

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
I fixed that problem in patch set 6:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/6

I also noted that in patch set 5 you again introduced the dependency on this commit:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=docs.git;a=commit;h=ac79bb7af566c127327a37c95405273489591683

I've fixed it in patch set 6.

My recommendation when amending a patch set is to start from the exact patch set. You can do that by using either "git review" (my preference) or by using the various download links on the top right of the gerrit link. That should avoid introducing false dependencies.

There's information on using git review to do this here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).

--Colin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
Re: ALTO docs for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

You can typically fix that by doing a git commit --amend instead of a normal git commit. That way your current work gets folded into the previous commit rather than created as a second one.

--Colin


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
Sorry I forgot to reset the change-Id.

I'll abandon 22316 and resubmit the patch to 20762 asap.

--Kai


On 12/06/15 04:21, Colin Dixon wrote:
It looks like you created two patches:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/22316/
depends on the existing one:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/

If you want, I can flatten the two into 20762 and abandon 22316 or you can do that. If you're having trouble getting git to do what you want, I'm happy to try to get on a Google hangout or IRC with you to help.

--Colin

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
I fixed that problem in patch set 6:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/6

I also noted that in patch set 5 you again introduced the dependency on this commit:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/gitweb?p=docs.git;a=commit;h=ac79bb7af566c127327a37c95405273489591683

I've fixed it in patch set 6.

My recommendation when amending a patch set is to start from the exact patch set. You can do that by using either "git review" (my preference) or by using the various download links on the top right of the gerrit link. That should avoid introducing false dependencies.

There's information on using git review to do this here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin


On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:
No worries. I  just didn't want to miss anything. It appears as though you're most recent patch set didn't build because you defined the read-restconf label twice.

In general, my suggestion is to make sure the docs projects builds ("mvn clean install" from the root) and check that your docs look the way you want in the PDFs ("find . -name *.pdf" to find them).

--Colin


On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
That is how things should look like. Thanks for your work.

I checked my bash history and figured out how things went wrong. I really appreciate your help and apologize for the mistakes again.

--Kai


On 04/06/15 21:46, Colin Dixon wrote:
A few points:
1.) It seems like 20762 depends on 20475 (patch set 2).
2.) It seems like there are edits present in 21600 that aren't in the combination of 20762 and 20475—specifically removing the getting started guide content.

Based on the assumption that 21600 was the closest to what you really wanted I copied that and replaced the changeId so that I could resubmit it as Patch Set 4 of 20762. Let me know if that looks wrong.

In the meantime, I'm going to assume that this is the right document to review and I'll likely get to that soon:
https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/20762/4

--Colin

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Gao Kai <godrickk@...> wrote:
20475 has been abandoned. Sorry for the mess.

On 04/06/15 03:08, Colin Dixon wrote:
Patches 18389 and 21600 are both abandoned, but patches 20475 and 20762 are still active. It's really hard for me to tell which patches are redundant and even harder for me to track if the feedback has been applied already.

Can you help me understand which of these is still relevant? In the future, you really want to respond to a review with a new patch set on the same gerrit change, not a new change altogether. Instructions on how to do that are here:
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Documentation/Tools#Updating_an_Existing_Patch

--Colin
RC0 Test Status

George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
 

Hello,

 

You receive this email because your project hasn’t reported RC0 test status, please take time to do so.

 

RC0 can be downloaded:

https://nexus.opendaylight.org/content/repositories/automatedweeklyreleases-1057/org/opendaylight/integration/distribution-karaf/0.3.0-Lithium-RC0/

 

RC0 test status should be updated:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPpO9LH539Vlcoa4RvLa6PPCdLifi5JD-ihRhlybqeo/edit#gid=1072617634

 

thanks,

George
alto patches needed for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

If you look here, you'll find two blocking bugs having to do with features files not being set up correctly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPpO9LH539Vlcoa4RvLa6PPCdLifi5JD-ihRhlybqeo/edit#gid=676729675

Ed pushed two patches to fix them that should also make it so that they're appropriately tested on builds, checkins, etc. going forward. If you could please merge them ASAP, it will vastly improve how the Lithium release process goes and improve ALTO's presence in Lithium.

--Colin
Re: Alto project issues

George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
 

ALTO committers,

 

Please respond to Luis’s request.

 

Thanks,

George

 

From: Luis Gomez [mailto:ecelgp@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:12 PM
To: George Zhao
Cc: release; integration-dev@...
Subject: Re: Alto project issues

 

I saw Ed and Hideyuki uploaded 3 patches for Alto:

 

 

This issue is currently blocking the new maven plugin work for distribution offline:

 

 

So if Alto people do not review and merge these patches by tomorrow morning PST, we will take Alto out of the Lithium integration distribution.

 

BR/Luis

 

 

 

On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:

 

Hi George,

 

We need to reach Alto project people with urgency as we found few issues in their repository:

 

1) They are NOT running the SingleFeature test (thanks Ed)

 

2) They miss artifacts in Nexus and this is undetected because of 1)

 

3) When alto features are installed in Karaf, they produce these errors: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3649

 

I think all the problems above would not happen if they had the SingleFeature test passing.

 

BR/Luis

 

PS- Going forward I think we will need an automation to detect when a project misses the SingleFeature test.

 
Re: Alto project issues

Y. Richard Yang
 

George, Luis,

Sorry for the delay--we were having some email delays as we travel.

Kai is fixing the patches right now and will respond shortly.

Thanks!
Richard

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:

ALTO committers,

 

Please respond to Luis’s request.

 

Thanks,

George

 

From: Luis Gomez [mailto:ecelgp@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:12 PM
To: George Zhao
Cc: release; integration-dev@...
Subject: Re: Alto project issues

 

I saw Ed and Hideyuki uploaded 3 patches for Alto:

 

 

This issue is currently blocking the new maven plugin work for distribution offline:

 

 

So if Alto people do not review and merge these patches by tomorrow morning PST, we will take Alto out of the Lithium integration distribution.

 

BR/Luis

 

 

 

On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:

 

Hi George,

 

We need to reach Alto project people with urgency as we found few issues in their repository:

 

1) They are NOT running the SingleFeature test (thanks Ed)

 

2) They miss artifacts in Nexus and this is undetected because of 1)

 

3) When alto features are installed in Karaf, they produce these errors: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3649

 

I think all the problems above would not happen if they had the SingleFeature test passing.

 

BR/Luis

 

PS- Going forward I think we will need an automation to detect when a project misses the SingleFeature test.

 




--
-- 
 =====================================
| Y. Richard Yang <yry@...>   |
| Professor of Computer Science       |
 =====================================
Re: Alto project issues

George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...>
 

Thanks, please do let me know it is done, if time permits, I will kick off a new build for you, otherwise, your patch will be picked up in tomorrow’s RC1 build.

 

From: yang.r.yang@... [mailto:yang.r.yang@...] On Behalf Of Y. Richard Yang
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:50 PM
To: George Zhao
Cc: Luis Gomez; alto-dev@...; xiao.shi@...; 13xinwang@...; odl@...; guo522@...; release; integration-dev@...
Subject: Re: Alto project issues

 

George, Luis,

 

Sorry for the delay--we were having some email delays as we travel.

 

Kai is fixing the patches right now and will respond shortly.

 

Thanks!

Richard

 

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@...> wrote:

ALTO committers,

 

Please respond to Luis’s request.

 

Thanks,

George

 

From: Luis Gomez [mailto:ecelgp@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:12 PM
To: George Zhao
Cc: release; integration-dev@...
Subject: Re: Alto project issues

 

I saw Ed and Hideyuki uploaded 3 patches for Alto:

 

 

This issue is currently blocking the new maven plugin work for distribution offline:

 

 

So if Alto people do not review and merge these patches by tomorrow morning PST, we will take Alto out of the Lithium integration distribution.

 

BR/Luis

 

 

 

On Jun 16, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Luis Gomez <ecelgp@...> wrote:

 

Hi George,

 

We need to reach Alto project people with urgency as we found few issues in their repository:

 

1) They are NOT running the SingleFeature test (thanks Ed)

 

2) They miss artifacts in Nexus and this is undetected because of 1)

 

3) When alto features are installed in Karaf, they produce these errors: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3649

 

I think all the problems above would not happen if they had the SingleFeature test passing.

 

BR/Luis

 

PS- Going forward I think we will need an automation to detect when a project misses the SingleFeature test.

 



 

--

-- 

 =====================================

| Y. Richard Yang <yry@...>   |

| Professor of Computer Science       |

 =====================================
Re: alto patches needed for Lithium

Y. Richard Yang
 

Dear Colin,

Sorry for the delay. Kai is working on it right now and will fix the issue soon.

Thanks!

Richard

At Jun 17, 2015, 5:20:40 AM, Colin Dixon<'colin@...'> wrote:
If you look here, you'll find two blocking bugs having to do with features files not being set up correctly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPpO9LH539Vlcoa4RvLa6PPCdLifi5JD-ihRhlybqeo/edit#gid=676729675

Ed pushed two patches to fix them that should also make it so that they're appropriately tested on builds, checkins, etc. going forward. If you could please merge them ASAP, it will vastly improve how the Lithium release process goes and improve ALTO's presence in Lithium.

--Colin
Re: alto patches needed for Lithium

Gao Kai
 

Should the patches be merged even they failed on jenkins?

On 17/06/15 05:20, Colin Dixon wrote:

If you look here, you'll find two blocking bugs having to do with features files not being set up correctly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPpO9LH539Vlcoa4RvLa6PPCdLifi5JD-ihRhlybqeo/edit#gid=676729675

Ed pushed two patches to fix them that should also make it so that they're appropriately tested on builds, checkins, etc. going forward. If you could please merge them ASAP, it will vastly improve how the Lithium release process goes and improve ALTO's presence in Lithium.

--Colin
Re: alto patches needed for Lithium

Colin Dixon <colin@...>
 

No, can you work with Ed to figure out why they're failing?

On Jun 17, 2015 1:02 AM, "Gao Kai" <godrickk@...> wrote:

Should the patches be merged even they failed on jenkins?

On 17/06/15 05:20, Colin Dixon wrote:
If you look here, you'll find two blocking bugs having to do with features files not being set up correctly.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KPpO9LH539Vlcoa4RvLa6PPCdLifi5JD-ihRhlybqeo/edit#gid=676729675

Ed pushed two patches to fix them that should also make it so that they're appropriately tested on builds, checkins, etc. going forward. If you could please merge them ASAP, it will vastly improve how the Lithium release process goes and improve ALTO's presence in Lithium.

--Colin
101 - 120 of 542