cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Why CloudStack 5
Date Fri, 25 Jan 2019 21:25:39 GMT
I am 100% with @Rohit Yadav <rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com> with respect to
4.12. I do diverge regarding the next LTS version though.

As you all guys said, the community is small, and as such, if we have the
requirement for multiple major changes, before upgrading the "X" bit in a
release, we will never go there (that is a fact). In my opinion, because
the community is small, we should look for a single major change (e.g. new
database upgrade method/scheme), and this should trigger the next major
release. The ability to upgrade the "X" bit free us to remove things such
as the basic network support (of course, we need to create a migration
path), new database scheme management method, normalize log messages and
logging framework and so on (many more issues can be listed here).

I really do not understand why we have so much resistance from some people
on this topic.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Suresh Kumar Anaparti <
sureshkumar.anaparti@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

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