> -----Original Message----- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:51 PM > To: CloudStack DeveloperList > Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0? > > +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
Yah, support the latest OVM is almost like rewrite the current OVM code, it will take months to get it done. > > > > On 10/18/12 12:06 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <kel...@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:calebc...@me.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM > >To: cloudstack-us...@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 <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang > <frank.zh...@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 > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> --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. > >
