cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Suresh Kumar Anaparti <sureshkumar.anapa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why CloudStack 5
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2019 16:27:10 GMT
Sounds good. Altogether, the makeover should be a new user experience and
leverage the latest hypervisor/storage tech and new/redesigned frameworks.

-Suresh

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com>
wrote:

> I'm in the favour of keeping the 4.x going because no API compatibility is
> broken, and as long as we are following semver there is no need. Calling a
> 4.x a 5.x just for the sake of bumping versions may cause some perception
> issue.
>
> Removal of unsupported/poc/incomplete features, plugins including APIs
> should not constitute breaking of compatibility. Several network and
> hypervisor plugins are still in poc/incomplete/unmaintained state.
>
> Unless the API layer, and perhaps DB layer is re-architected there is no
> point in calling the next version 5.x as long as semver is followed.
>
> In my opinion, the next major version 5.0 should have a restful versioned
> API layer, a new DB+upgrade framework that may support multiple db servers,
> a new UI, sandboxed plugin framework (right now a plugin can do anything it
> wants to say the cloud db), a new agent-clustering framework (the current
> low level nio and rpc code goes away), a distributed message bus and
> locking service (that we thought to introduce in 4.2,4.3 but incomplete),
> and refactor the networking/VR layer with a new VR. Not to mention cleanup
> some technical debt. The keywords being major architectural and
> api/integrational changes. Some of this maybe on-going, but we'll get to
> 5.x with patience over time.
>
> Regards,
> Rohit Yadav
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev_ia@bw-sw.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:15:29 AM
> To: users; dev
> Subject: Why CloudStack 5
>
> I decided whether to write it several weeks thinking about the stones and
> rotten potatoes, but still decided to do that. Hope it will not raise the
> stress level.
>
> Colleagues and ACS leaders, I would like to initiate the discussion. Why go
> to CS5 rather than stay with 4.XX. Some thoughts are:
>
> 1. According to the versioning guide, the first number stands for radical
> changes like if the community decided to go from current ORM to Hibernate.
> I don't see the capabilities for such changes and there are no intentions
> for the implementation.
>
> 2. I can realize that we 'stuck' with '4.XX' and the marketing can be
> disappointing from that point of view. Then, OK, let's just skip the first
> number "4." and release, ACS 13.X, 14.X, 15.X and so on. Every version will
> receive new impressing version number and everyone could be happy about
> that.
>
> Going to version "5" currently looks like as an intention to refresh but
> with very poor motivation. At least to me.
>
> The discussion is strongly welcome.
>
>
>
> --
> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev
> Bitworks LLC
> Cell RU: +7-923-414-1515
> Cell USA: +1-201-257-1512
> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/>
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message