We're in good hands, thanks Radhika! Ahmad
On Mar 9, 2013, at 1:31 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath <radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com> wrote: > Ahmad, I am in the process of documenting the API changes for IPv6 support > plus additional info. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:50 AM > To: Chip Childers > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Sheng Yang > Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1 > > Oh no, I'm all for API only access, of ipv6 features, for 4.1. The UI can > come down the line... whoever wants to play with this feature will likely be > okay with the experimental template downloaded out of band too. Is this going > to be documented somewhere? > > > 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? >> >>> >>> --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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
