cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edison Su <Edison...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
Date Mon, 08 Jul 2013 23:35:04 GMT
And I want to point out, that, it's easy to say this feature and that feature are supported
in certain release, but without fully tested for each release, only God will know the status.
For example, there is a bug in 4.2: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2583,
it says can't backup snapshot from primary storage into S3 if the hypervisor is xenserver.

It's fired for 4.2, but actually, 4.1 will have the same issue.
Will we claim, to support S3 in 4.1, while the major functionality of S3 is broken?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: 'Chip Childers'
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> All,
> 
> I apologize for losing track of this issue.  We discussed the lack of Swift
> support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but I
> completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed.
> 
> This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion.
> A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no
> usage.  It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without
> community discussion and consensus.
> 
> In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question.  I am
> concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles.
> Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete.  To me, it
> is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was
> familiar.  Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to fill in
> the gaps."  To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be
> acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing.
> 
> Thanks,
> -John
> 
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were  no code
> changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized.
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM
> > To: 'Chip Childers'; <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM
> >> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su
> >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that,
> >>>> we only
> >> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now.
> >>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community,
> >>>> do
> >> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will
> >> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the
> integration?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Whats the bug ID for this?
> >>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It
> >>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on
> >>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path.
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>
> >> Edison, How broken is it?  Is it shorter to fix or revert the object
> >> store changes?
> > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or not, as
> this feature is not tested by QA for a long time.
> >


Mime
View raw message