So, we should drop mention of OVM in CloudStack docs? There are a couple of mentions, such as in the adding-a-host section.
Jessica T. CloudStack Tech Pubs -----Original Message----- From: Will Chan [mailto:will.c...@citrix.com] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:02 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0? 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/ > >
