> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:43 AM
> >
> > So what we are *REALLY* talking about here, is that an experimental
> > feature from past releases was modified for 4.1 but is broken
> > completely now.
> >
> > IMO we need to do 2 things. First, we *must* document that the
> > experimental feature from past releases is not in 4.1 in the release
> > notes. Second, yes, we should remove it from the DB.
> >
> > Basically, nobody is going to be able to use it if they install the
> > code, right? So if they do use bare metal from a prior version, I
> > certainly hope that they don't upgrade to 4.1 (given the state of the
> > feature).
> >
> > Anyone else have a thought?
>
>
> So here are my raw thoughts. Take them for what you will.
>
> We have a feature that IMO is a pretty big deal, akin to hypervisor support.
> We've had similar issues with OVM in the past.
>
> Perhaps we need to be looking at whether such massive features are
> sustainable. In this case (as with OVM) no one cared enough to fix the
> problems and it fell into disrepair, and rather than the community making an
> informed decision to discontinue support for a feature and phase support
> out over time, our hand is forced when QA finds issues.
> Writing the software initially is easier than the long term maintenance, and
> given that we've dropped a 'hypervisor' every release, I am wondering if we
> don't need to reject some of these efforts outright if there is doubt as to
> sustainability.
[Animesh>] David appreciate your thoughts It just happened that the baremetal
testing began just when Frank started his vacation. As soon as he returns he
should get back to fix baremetal and sustain the effort.
