Merge lp:~ccheney/ubuntu/lucid/eucalyptus/lucid-sru into lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed/eucalyptus
| Status: | Superseded |
|---|---|
| Proposed branch: | lp:~ccheney/ubuntu/lucid/eucalyptus/lucid-sru |
| Merge into: | lp:ubuntu/lucid-proposed/eucalyptus |
| Diff against target: |
113 lines (+29/-18) 4 files modified
clc/modules/www/src/main/java/edu/ucsb/eucalyptus/admin/server/EucalyptusWebBackendImpl.java (+6/-3) debian/changelog (+11/-0) debian/eucalyptus-sc.upstart (+8/-0) node/handlers_kvm.c (+4/-15) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~ccheney/ubuntu/lucid/eucalyptus/lucid-sru |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mathias Gug | 2010-06-04 | Approve on 2010-06-04 | |
| Dave Walker | 2010-06-04 | Pending | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
This proposal has been superseded by a proposal from 2010-06-07.
Description of the Change
SRU for lucid
* Revert: node/handlers_
* clc/modules/
- fix user enumeration and account brute force, LP: #579942
* debian/
SC to 512, LP: #586134
| Chris Cheney (ccheney) wrote : | # |
> I would add a reference to the LP bug number for the patch that is reverted.
> Otherwise the patch looks good to me.
>
> Both bug 586134 and bug 579942 need to have a proper SRU report written up.
I have written up the two SRUs.
- 153. By Chris Cheney on 2010-06-07
-
Revert: node/handlers_
kvm.c: fix console bug (was only showing first 64K),
LP: #566793 - 154. By Chris Cheney on 2010-06-08
-
Merged.
Unmerged revisions
- 154. By Chris Cheney on 2010-06-08
-
Merged.
- 153. By Chris Cheney on 2010-06-07
-
Revert: node/handlers_
kvm.c: fix console bug (was only showing first 64K),
LP: #566793 - 152. By Chris Cheney on 2010-06-04
-
* Revert: node/handlers_
kvm.c: fix console bug (was only showing first 64K)
* clc/modules/www/src/ main/java/ edu/ucsb/ eucalyptus/ admin/server/ EucalyptusWebBa ckendImpl. java:
- fix user enumeration and account brute force, LP: #579942
* debian/eucalyptus- sc.upstart: Bump maximum number of loop devices for
SC to 512, LP: #586134


I would add a reference to the LP bug number for the patch that is reverted. Otherwise the patch looks good to me.
Both bug 586134 and bug 579942 need to have a proper SRU report written up.