38 messages in org.apache.incubator.cloudstack-devRE: Drop OVM in 4.0?| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Edison Su | Oct 17, 2012 11:25 am | |
| Kelcey Damage (BBITS) | Oct 17, 2012 11:27 am | |
| Frank Zhang | Oct 17, 2012 11:35 am | |
| Kelcey Damage (BBITS) | Oct 17, 2012 11:37 am | |
| Edison Su | Oct 17, 2012 11:37 am | |
| Kelcey Damage (BBITS) | Oct 17, 2012 11:39 am | |
| David Nalley | Oct 17, 2012 11:40 am | |
| Frank Zhang | Oct 17, 2012 11:47 am | |
| David Nalley | Oct 17, 2012 11:51 am | |
| Sudha Ponnaganti | Oct 17, 2012 11:53 am | |
| Sudha Ponnaganti | Oct 17, 2012 12:20 pm | |
| Will Chan | Oct 17, 2012 1:55 pm | |
| Kristoffer Sheather - Cloud Central | Oct 17, 2012 2:40 pm | |
| Outback Dingo | Oct 17, 2012 2:42 pm | |
| Caleb Call | Oct 17, 2012 3:01 pm | |
| Kelcey Damage (BBITS) | Oct 17, 2012 3:06 pm | |
| Chiradeep Vittal | Oct 17, 2012 4:50 pm | |
| David Nalley | Oct 17, 2012 4:54 pm | |
| Edison Su | Oct 17, 2012 4:55 pm | |
| Chiradeep Vittal | Oct 17, 2012 4:58 pm | |
| Frank Zhang | Oct 17, 2012 6:59 pm | |
| Joe Brockmeier | Oct 17, 2012 7:30 pm | |
| Chip Childers | Oct 18, 2012 7:11 am | |
| Will Chan | Oct 18, 2012 10:01 am | |
| John Kinsella | Oct 18, 2012 10:04 am | |
| Jessica Tomechak | Oct 18, 2012 10:05 am | |
| Will Chan | Oct 18, 2012 10:29 am | |
| Kevin Kluge | Oct 18, 2012 11:10 am | |
| Joe Brockmeier | Oct 18, 2012 12:36 pm | |
| David Nalley | Oct 18, 2012 12:47 pm | |
| Marcus Sorensen | Oct 18, 2012 12:53 pm | |
| Edison Su | Oct 18, 2012 1:53 pm | |
| Joe Brockmeier | Oct 18, 2012 2:15 pm | |
| Edison Su | Oct 18, 2012 2:59 pm | |
| Chip Childers | Oct 18, 2012 3:04 pm | |
| Joe Brockmeier | Oct 18, 2012 4:06 pm | |
| Caleb Call | Oct 18, 2012 4:55 pm | |
| Sudha Ponnaganti | Oct 18, 2012 5:43 pm |
| Subject: | RE: Drop OVM in 4.0? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Edison Su (Edis...@citrix.com) | |
| Date: | Oct 17, 2012 4:55:46 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.incubator.cloudstack-dev | |
-----Original Message----- From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chir...@citrix.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:51 PM To: CloudStack DeveloperList Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
+1 on fixing in a 4.0.x. We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases". We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially code-complete for this reason. This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There is just too much uncertainty. Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
Yah, support the latest OVM is almost like rewrite the current OVM code, it will
take months to get it done.
On 10/18/12 12:06 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to drop the feature. The thought was, will fixing support for this HV push release back by a large amount? And if so, then could the feature fix come after 4.0 in the form of 4.0.1.
And I completely agree that if this is the case, it should be documented, or the upgrade be blocked for current OVM users, as to avoid confusion.
-----Original Message----- From: Caleb Call [mailto:cale...@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM To: clou...@incubator.apache.org Cc: clou...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <dav...@gnsa.us> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
<Fran...@citrix.com>
wrote:
OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue.
It
takes a while to fix.
I vote to dropping it from 4.0
Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM from working in 4.0? Can we get bugs filed for those issues? This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for this or not.
--David
I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for. This is one major feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other IaaS options out there. If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very clear that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature. Maybe go as far as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the upgrade fails.