On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal > <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> >>>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone, >>>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1 >>>release, to avoid confusion. >> >> As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People >> are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is >> considered experimental. >> I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage >> of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the >> 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say, >> 'yeah, probably OK'. > > I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would > need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I > opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we > started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine. > > But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
I meant, 4.2 --Sheng > issue raised by QA at last minute. > > I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in > 4.1. Seems nobody cares. >> >>> >>>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template >>>for one release would be tricky I think. >> >> Yes, but it is experimental. >> >>> >>>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained >>>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside >>>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested >>>enough for default template. >> >> These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could >> use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless >> some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example: >> - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or >> - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created. > > I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or > confident. > > I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things. > > According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's > right that people not quite interested in ipv6. > > Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable > with updated template. > > --Sheng > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785 > [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387 > [3] > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159 >> >>> >>>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade >>>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't >>>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again, >>>Kelven should able to help with it. >>> >>>--Sheng >>> >>>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers >>><chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >>>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6 >>>>> feature is required in which case: >>>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing >>>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) >>>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is >>>>>created) to >>>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> >>>> >>>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be >>>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants >>>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work >>>> to get the correct system VM. >>>> >>>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. >>>> >>>> Other thoughts? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>>>> >> When I first report the bug >>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of >>>>> >>that. >>>>> > >>>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the >>>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I >>>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to >>>>> >4.2 >>>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in >>>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an >>>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are: >>>>> > >>>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 >>>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the >>>>> >appliance/template really works [2] >>>>> > >>>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would >>>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I >>>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1 >>>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at >>>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used >>>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could >>>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the >>>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template. >>>>> > >>>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? >>>>> > >>>>> >Regards. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 >>>>> > >>>>> >> >>>>> >> --Sheng >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers >>>>> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature >>>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system >>>>>VM >>>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch >>>>> >>>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/ >>>>>>>>>las >>>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to >>>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now >>>>>are the >>>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix >>>>>pre-ASF). >>>>> >>>>> >>
