I feel like we need to clarify what's at risk here. Not to disrespect anyone's opinion, but I'm just not getting where this is being considered a major feature. I think the very idea of Xen not having feature parity (regardless of the feature) is distasteful to a lot of us, and it should be. But consider that we are already two months behind on a four month release cycle, and it sounds like fixing this could take a month (if no issues are found, two weeks to qual the new template). We run a time-based release, not a feature-based release. Not all features are expected to be fully functional to get out the door. Isn't the correct option to just mark the feature experimental, tell them to run the newer template at their risk if they want it?
1) We need to verify whether this bug has been around for a long time, because it will tell us how much it really matters and thus whether or not it's a blocker. This addresses the 'timestamp of logs" and other issues not related to new features. 2) We need to reiterate exactly what features are being affected. The original e-mail lists 'S3 integration' as the only feature affected. As far as I understand it, the actual feature impacted is a 'secondary storage sync', if you have multiple zones, multiple secondary storages, this backs up and handles the copying of templates, etc so you don't have to manually register them everywhere. I appreciate John's work for getting that secondary storage sync feature in place. I really wish we would have noticed the issue earlier on, then we may not be having this discussion. That said, no disrespect intended toward John, I'm having a hard time understanding how this is a feature worth holding up the release. It's not a new primary or secondary storage type integration, and it's not a feature where the admin is helpless to do it themselves. If VPC doesn't work, the admin can't do anything about it. If this sync doesn't work, the admin writes a script that copies their stuff everywhere. Please, if anyone considers this a major feature worth blocking on, explain to us why. Are you willing to push back release of all of the other new features, and push back the 4.2 features, to have this one feature in June, or whenever 4.1 gets out? On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 on moving forward. > > On this issue and on the upgrade issue I have realized that we forgot about > our time based release philosophy. > > There will always be bugs in the software. If we know them we can acknowledge > them in release notes and get started quickly on the next releases. > > To keep it short, I am now of the opinion (and I know I am kind of switching > mind here), that we should release 4.1 asap and start working on the bug fix > versions right away. > > If we do release often, then folks stuck on a particular bug can expect a > quick turn around and fix of their problems. > > -sebastien > > On May 22, 2013, at 2:59 AM, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> -1 on this. >> >> New features really should be across the board for the Hypervisors. Part >> of the thing that distinguishes ACS is it's support across Xen / VMware / >> KVM. Do we really want to start getting in the habit of pushing forward >> new features that are not across the fully functional hypervisors? >> >> I agree with Outback this also will start to affect the Xen/XCP community >> by basically setting them apart and out on what a lot of people see as a >> major feature. >> >> I think it sets a really bad precedent. If it was Hyper-V which is not >> fully functional and not a major feature-set right now, I would be +1 on >> this. >> >> MHO >> Matt >> >> >> >> On 5/20/13 4:15 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug >>> (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System VMs >>> are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV or an NTP >>> service. That bug affects the system VMs for all three primary HVs (KVM, >>> Xen and vSphere). Patches have been committed addressing vSphere and >>> KVM. It appears that a correction for Xen would require the re-build of >>> a system VM image and a full round of regression testing that image. >>> >>> Given that the discussion thread has not resulted in a consensus on this >>> issue, I unfortunately believe that the only path forward is to call for >>> a formal VOTE. >>> >>> Please respond with one of the following: >>> >>> +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492 being >>> resolved >>> +0: don't care one way or the other >>> -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates until >>> CLOUDSTACK-2492 has been fully resolved >>> >>> -chip >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb >> >
