cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Higginbottom <geoff.higginbot...@shapeblue.com>
Subject RE: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2
Date Wed, 15 May 2013 15:10:44 GMT
Hi Chip,

If I could add my 10 cents worth.

I know of a number of potential CloudStack users who want to deploy CloudStack, but ONLY when
this feature is available as it is critical to their deployment plans.  One of them is actually
looking at OpenStack as an alternative!

What I am also confused about is that it has been in Citrix CloudPlatform since 3.0.6 release,
and has been improved in subsequent updates (2x patch releases)

If it is working in CloudPlatform, we should be able to get it into the CloudStack 4.1 release

Therefore I vote for option 1: Pull the feature into 4.1 and do the relevant testing

I am sure I can get some volunteers to help with testing, myself included.

Regards

Geoff Higginbottom

D: +44 20 3603 0542 | S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447968161581

geoff.higginbottom@shapeblue.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: 15 May 2013 15:14
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2

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

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use
of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England
& Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue
is a registered trademark.


Mime
View raw message