Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
To: CloudStack DeveloperList <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:50:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
Thread-Topic: Drop OVM in 4.0?
Thread-Index: Ac2swjg7D8SeKVSKROuNXUXhdi4SBw==
Message-ID: <CCA49192.32EC8%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <02a701cdacb3$a62b9550$f282bff0$@bbits.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

+1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially
code-complete for this reason.
This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There
is just too much uncertainty.
Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0


On 10/18/12 12:06 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <kelcey@bbits.ca> wrote:

>
>I don't think anyone wants to drop the feature. The thought was, will
>fixing
>support for this HV push release back by a large amount? And if so, then
>could the feature fix come after 4.0 in the form of 4.0.1.
>
>And I completely agree that if this is the case, it should be documented,
>or
>the upgrade be blocked for current OVM users, as to avoid confusion.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM
>To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>
>On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Frank.Zhang@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
>takes a while to fix.
>>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
>>=20
>> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
>> from working in 4.0?
>> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
>> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
>> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
>> for this or not.
>>=20
>> --David
>
>I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one major
>feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other
>IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very
>clear
>that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade
>thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go as
>far
>as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the
>upgrade fails.
>