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 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:12:22 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM
> To: Edison Su
> Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2?
> 
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----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.
> >
> >
> 
> So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like?  I mean, just because it

If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift.
But who will make the decision?

> wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it
> wasn't working.  As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack
> of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of
> that feature.
> 
> I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to
> do.  I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support".  If necessary, I'd say that
> we need to roll back the object-store branch merge...  I don't want to see
> that happen though.  That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it.
> 
> -chip

Mime
View raw message