On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote: > Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members, > > What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion? Do others? Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus? > > API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this > feature. > > > Thank You > -Radhika > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1 > > UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template > X). > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers > > <chip.child...@sungard.com> > > wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1 > > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid > > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1 > > >> > > >> --Sheng > > >> > > > > > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should > > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean > > > that way > > myself. > > > > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it. > > > > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user > > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template > > support would be misleading. > > > > --Sheng > > >
