> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:56 AM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi
> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Baremetal blockers - To remove Baremetal from UI
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi
> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----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.
> >
>
> It's not that Frank is gone or the timing. It's that only one person cares and
> apparently only one person who can work on it. (e.g. a bus factor [1] of one
> for a major feature doesn't strike me as
> sustainable.)
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
[Animesh>] Agreed, if anyone else wants to contribute towards baremetal they
are welcome to do so.
