On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > 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?
In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread... I think we're OK with API only. --Sheng > >> >> 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 >> > >>
