cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com>
Subject Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Date Thu, 16 May 2013 13:56:05 GMT
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:53:31PM +0200, nicolas.lamirault@orange.com wrote:
> Our PROD is in 2.2.13, using Advaned Zone and SG enabled.
> But we don't use SG features. We use vmWare.
> We try to upgrade our pre-production environment to 4.1, but we
> failed due to the CLOUDSTACK-2463 bug.
> We have not managed to update 4.0, and we would pass the 4.1.

Nicolas:

If we were able to upgrade you correctly to 4.1, but security groups were not yet
functional, would that suffice?

> 
> Le 15/05/2013 21:25, Chip Childers a écrit :
> >Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the
> >CC list.
> >
> >One other note...  From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to
> >re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and
> >KVM.  I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware.
> >
> >We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this
> >feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?).
> >
> >Thoughts on what to do?
> >
> >-chip
> >
> >On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote:
> >>I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be upgradable
from previous releases.  We can't strand our user base on a previous release.
> >>
> >>--Alex
> >>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweizhou@gmail.com]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM
> >>>To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>>Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
> >>>
> >>>Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups).
> >>>These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for
> >>>more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of
> >>>cloudstack version into account in development.
> >>>
> >>>As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the feature
> >>>will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done.
> >>>
> >>>I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also
> >>>need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay
for
> >>>uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice.
> >>>
> >>>I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14  (advanced zone with
> >>>security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if
> >>>needed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>2013/5/15 Chip Childers <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> >>>
> >>>>Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade
> >>>>from 2.x to 4.1.  This relates to the security groups feature being
> >>>>available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone.  This
> >>>>feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to
> >>>>be reintroduced until 4.2.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for
a
> >>>>third time.
> >>>>
> >>>>IMO, we have 2 very specific options:
> >>>>
> >>>>1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing.
> >>>>
> >>>>2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a
> >>>>strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x
> >>>>to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the
> >>>>feature should wait for 4.2).
> >>>>
> >>>>At this point, I don't have a preference.  We probably need to
> >>>>understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that
> >>>>work (dev AND testing).
> >>>>
> >>>>Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>>-chip
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolas Lamirault
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou
privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques
etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that
may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message
and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message