Do we have any idea how many CS users use OVM? I suspect I know the answer to that…so, do we want to consider adding (optional) code in the future to phone home with some usage stats?
On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Will Chan <will.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > It will take > week to get the existing OVM support to work again. The > reason being CloudPlatform doesn't have this working in our recent releases > since Acton. Adding support for the latest OVM will take even longer. > > I would vote to have OVM be fixed in a later 4.0.x release. > > Will > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:12 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0? >> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >>>> +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 >>> >>> We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but we're >>> not quite there yet. >>> >>> IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support >>> upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and >>> Brocade were not in those releases - OVM was. >> >> That certainly was the case, but we might need to rethink that assumption. >> There are really 2 issues: supporting the latest version of OVM and / or >> fixing the previous OVM support. >> >> I understand the point about supporting the latest OVM version being "at >> least > 1 week". I haven't seen any answer to "fixing" the issues for the >> previously supported OVM version. Does anyone have a good handle on >> that effort? If it's equal or similar to making it work on the latest OVM, >> then perhaps we are talking about the same thing... >> If they are significantly different efforts, then we have to make a different >> decision. >> >>> It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear >>> timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's >>> going to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be >>> working on this feature and we're expecting it to be in master within >>> two weeks of shipping 4.0.0-incubating). >> >> Or at least a reasonable estimate for the different versions of "fixing" this >> problem (per my question above). >> >>> Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an >>> attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users >>> who depend on OVM. >> >> +1 >> >>> [1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform >>> -- >>> Joe Brockmeier >>> Twitter: @jzb >>> http://dissociatedpress.net/ >>> > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
