On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next >> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI. >> >> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in >> the UI? > > Sorry just found I missed the mail. > > If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or > something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is > needed?
Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now! > > --Sheng >> >>> >>> --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 >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >
