+1 on David's comments. This has been discussed from usability stand point. I will wait for Ram to revive the thread to follow up on this.
-----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:32 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: FS for host updates notifications On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > Bumping this thread. > > In reviewing CLOUDSTACK-192, I don't believe that we have reached > consensus on this feature being part of CloudStack. Ram noted in the > ticket that the conversation would be revived. Do we want to do that? > > If not, I'm going to close CLOUDSTACK-192 as not applicable, move the > functional spec to the uncommitted design page, and note that it > wasn't accepted for now. > > If it was, I believe that Citrix released this feature in > CloudPlatform. If that is the case, we will have to bring in the code > via the IP Clearance process. > > Does someone want to try to drive this to consensus? > As I understand it the proposed plan is to check a URL that the project doesn't control, and based on the contents of that URL advise users, regardless of version of CloudStack that they have deployed that there is an update to to their hypervisor and the unwritten part of this implies that the user should apply said update, and that we essentially are condoning it, despite the fact that we have done no testing. CloudStack is in a weird position in that it orchestrates lots of moving pieces. Blindly encouraging folks to update scares the sysadmin in me, yes we might avoid some problems, but if you look at some of the things we might have 'encouraged' upgrades for across all of the hypervisors, letting a third party tell us "it's ok" should scare you as well. --David
