On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote: > There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive. > But, it can't be many. We have seen few questions about its usage > and integration. And OVM's share of the server virtualization market > is quite low. Given limited user impact, if this is really the only > problem I'd defer the fix.
The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%. If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd be one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting 4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address OVM support in a timely fashion after, if at all. If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does, that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting down the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM support. Best, Joe -- Joe Brockmeier Twitter: @jzb http://dissociatedpress.net/
