On 28/05/13 4:23 PM, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > >On 05/23/2013 06:35 PM, Chip Childers wrote: >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:25:10PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM >>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Edison, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other >>>>>>>> $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> -John >>>>>>> [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away from 4.2 feature >>>>>>> freeze, can >>>>>> you provide your comments by Friday 5/24. I would like all feature >>>> threads >>>>>> to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further... >>>>>> this type of change is an "architectural" change. We had previously >>>>>> discussed (on several >>>>>> threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit >>>>>> master was >>>>>> *early* in the release cycle. Any reason that that consensus >>>>>> doesn't apply here? >>>>> [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this >>>>>started a >>>> few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by >>>>4/30 >>>> but it took longer than anticipated in preparing for merge and >>>>testing on >>>> feature branch. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You're not following me I think. See this thread on the Javelin >>>>merge: >>>> >>>> http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4 >>>> >>>> We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to >>>>hit >>>> master shortly after a feature branch is cut. Why are we not doing >>>>that here? >>> >>> This kind of refactor takes time, a lot of time. I think I worked on >>>the merge of primary storage refactor into master and bug fixes during >>>March(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/14469 >>>), then started to work on the secondary storage refactor in >>>April(http://markmail.org/message/cspb6xweeupfvpit). Min and I finished >>>the coding at end of April, then tested for two weeks, send out the >>>merge request at middle of May. >>> With the refactor, the storage code will be much cleaner, and the >>>performance of S3 will be improved, and integration with other storage >>>vendor will be much easier, and the quality is ok(33 bugs fired, only 5 >>>left: >>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22Object_Store_Re >>>factor%22). Anyway, it's up to the community to decide, merge it or >>>not, we already tried our best to get it done ASAP. >>> >>> >> >> I'm absolutely not questioning the time and effort here. I know that >> you have been working hard, and that testing is happening! >> >> I'm only asking if we, as a community, want to follow the practice of >> bringing changes like this in early or late in a cycle. I thought we >> had agreed on doing it early. >> > >So I tried reviewing the code, but I have to say that it is a lot of >code. Reviewing such a large piece of code isn't easy. > >Now, let me be honest, I'd love to see this in 4.2 since it would make >the Ceph integration a lot better. We can get rid of NFS as Secondary >Storage and use Ceph as the only storage for CS. > >Yes, it might need some work after this branch has been merged, but I do >agree that it's a lot of work to maintain a branch next to master. Even >with smaller fixes you have to do a lot to keep up. > >Imho a feature freeze is a feature freeze. It's set for May 31st and >afterwards we start ironing the bugs out, but no new merges from other >branches. > >We will need the full support from Edison and Co to help iron out these >bugs. Maybe something will be broken after the merge and that should be >fixed asap then. > >Again, my opinion in this is a bit coloured, but I think this will be a >great addition to CloudStack, it would make 4.2 a killer release. > >Wido I think I agree with Wido, this is a great feature and if it makes it to 4.2 that would be great. With full support from Edison and others and having Animesh throwing his weight around this feature I think the risks are minimal. -abhi >
