cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nitin Mehta <Nitin.Me...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
Date Tue, 28 May 2013 14:12:21 GMT
Agree with Wido. This would be a great feature to have in 4.2. Yes, its a
lot of change and probably needs more education from Edison and Min maybe
through code walkthroughs, documentation, IRC meetings but I am +1 for
this to make it to 4.2 and would go as far to say that I would even
volunteer for any bug fixes required.

I would say its not too bad to merge it now as most of the features for
4.2 are merged by now and not a lot of them would be blocked because of
this. Yes, the master would be unstable but it would be even if we merge
it post cutting 4.2 branch. I would rather see this coming in 4.2 than
wait for another 6 months or so for it. Yes, this is an architectural
change and we are learning as a community to time these kind of changes.
We should also try and raise alarms for these changes much early when the
FS was proposed rather than when its done, probably a learning for all of
us :)

Thanks,
-Nitin

On 28/05/13 4:23 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:

>
>
>On 05/23/2013 06:35 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:25:10PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM
>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM
>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edison,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks, I will start going through it today.  Based on other
>>>>>>>> $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>> [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away  from 4.2 feature
>>>>>>> freeze, can
>>>>>> you provide your comments by Friday 5/24.   I would like all feature
>>>> threads
>>>>>> to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further...
>>>>>> this type of change is an "architectural" change.  We had previously
>>>>>> discussed (on several
>>>>>> threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit
>>>>>> master was
>>>>>> *early* in the release cycle.  Any reason that that consensus
>>>>>> doesn't apply here?
>>>>> [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this
>>>>>started a
>>>> few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by
>>>>4/30
>>>> but it took longer than anticipated in  preparing for merge and
>>>>testing on
>>>> feature branch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're not following me I think.  See this thread on the Javelin
>>>>merge:
>>>>
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4
>>>>
>>>> We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to
>>>>hit
>>>> master shortly after a feature branch is cut.  Why are we not doing
>>>>that here?
>>>
>>> This kind of refactor takes time, a lot of time. I think I worked on
>>>the merge of primary storage refactor into master and bug fixes during
>>>March(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/14469
>>>), then started to work on the secondary storage refactor in
>>>April(http://markmail.org/message/cspb6xweeupfvpit). Min and I finished
>>>the coding at end of April, then tested for two weeks, send out the
>>>merge request at middle of May.
>>> With the refactor, the  storage code will be much cleaner, and the
>>>performance of S3 will be improved, and integration with other storage
>>>vendor will be much easier, and the quality is ok(33 bugs fired, only 5
>>>left: 
>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22Object_Store_Re
>>>factor%22). Anyway, it's up to the community to decide, merge it or
>>>not, we already tried our best to get it done ASAP.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm absolutely not questioning the time and effort here.  I know that
>> you have been working hard, and that testing is happening!
>>
>> I'm only asking if we, as a community, want to follow the practice of
>> bringing changes like this in early or late in a cycle.  I thought we
>> had agreed on doing it early.
>>
>
>So I tried reviewing the code, but I have to say that it is a lot of
>code. Reviewing such a large piece of code isn't easy.
>
>Now, let me be honest, I'd love to see this in 4.2 since it would make
>the Ceph integration a lot better. We can get rid of NFS as Secondary
>Storage and use Ceph as the only storage for CS.
>
>Yes, it might need some work after this branch has been merged, but I do
>agree that it's a lot of work to maintain a branch next to master. Even
>with smaller fixes you have to do a lot to keep up.
>
>Imho a feature freeze is a feature freeze. It's set for May 31st and
>afterwards we start ironing the bugs out, but no new merges from other
>branches.
>
>We will need the full support from Edison and Co to help iron out these
>bugs. Maybe something will be broken after the merge and that should be
>fixed asap then.
>
>Again, my opinion in this is a bit coloured, but I think this will be a
>great addition to CloudStack, it would make 4.2 a killer release.
>
>Wido


Mime
View raw message