Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Upgrade path to ACS 4.2 from CCP
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Upgrade path to ACS 4.2 from CCP
Thread-Index: Ac6DRukBiE0PH+xqRruMnkBuEmVFjQAsUseAAAJWhpA=
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:01:02 +0000
Message-ID: <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D069E3D@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
References: <C3637609BC1C0D40A2AC70F4760C7A2D068725@SJCPEX01CL02.citrite.net>
 <20130718134849.GB50818@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
In-Reply-To: <20130718134849.GB50818@USLT-205755.sungardas.corp>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:49 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Upgrade path to ACS 4.2 from CCP
>=20
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:43:49PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote:
> >
> > Folks
> >
> > We have an upgrade path from CCP 3.0.2 to 4.0 ACS and since then we
> have diverged. I would like to propose adding upgrade path from later
> CCP versions to ACS 4.2 which provides customers the choice to move to
> ACS from CCP and also brings CCP closer to upstream ACS releases.
> >
> > The proposed upgrade paths are CCP3.0.4, CCP3.0.5, CCP3.06, CCP3.0.7
> to ACS4.2. Please provide your feedback.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Animesh
> >
> >
> >
> >
>=20
> Generally...  +1000.  I think that this is a wonderful idea.
>=20
> I have a couple of thoughts:
>=20
> We will really need to implement the "checkpoint"
> version concept that Hugo proposed earlier [1].  The reason that I say
> this, is that the source and binaries for CCP aren't available to non-
> customers of citrix / non-citrix devs.
[Animesh>] Agreed I also like the checkpoint, as Hugo points out our dbupgr=
ade are sequentially applied so not a coding issue but certainly matters to=
 QA
>=20
> I obviously assume that Citrix is officially OK with this (and you are
> basically representing that to the list).  Given that "ok", I further
> assume that Citrix employeed engineers would do the work (since they
> have access to the CCP releases).
>=20
> Once the upgrades are in ACS, we would want to reduce the testing effort
> around them going forward by ensuring that the targeted ACS release that
> we test the upgrades to will be one of the "checkpoint" releases per
> Hugo's proposal.
[Animesh>] Agreed
>=20
> Last thought...  this doesn't seem like a 4.2 change to me.  Isn't it
> too late to deal with testing it now? =20
[Animesh>] Yes this seems late for 4.2, but it makes it easier to add suppo=
rt now. If there is objection we can track it for 4.3. =20

If not, and there are people
> ready to roll, then no worries.  I'm just pointing out what may be
> obvious:  you've hit feature freeze, and this seems like a significant
> amount of work.
>=20
> -chip
>=20
> [1] http://markmail.org/thread/p34jbalr25pwocez