> -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:42 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: 'Chip Childers' > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? > > All, > > I apologize for losing track of this issue. We discussed the lack of Swift > support briefly in late May/early June as part of the first round review, but > I > completely lost track of it in the sea of items being addressed. > > This gap represents a feature deprecation without any community discussion. > A lack of code changes or test requests for a feature does not translate to no > usage. It also does not provide license for a feature to be dropped without
They are not directly translated to no usage, but as all the code(swift/s3/nfs) are glued together in pre-object-store-branch-merge, it's likely one guy fixes a bug for nfs, will break swift/s3. If the feature is nobody verified for each release(since 4.0), how many confidence do we have, that the feature is still working? > community discussion and consensus. > > In summary, post merge is not the time to be asking this question. I am I am asking the question, because, nobody knows the status of swift since 4.0, should I need to make sure the features that not been tested for a long time to work? If we want to support this feature, then we need to gather the requirement, for example, the Swift, also coming with S3 compatible API(http://www.buildcloudstorage.com/2011/11/s3-apis-on-openstack-swift.html), Is it OK to just support S3 api, instead of using swift's native API? > concerned about the precedent this action will set in future release cycles. > Furthermore, re-implementation of a feature should be complete. To me, it > is not acceptable to say, "I re-implemented the functionality with which I was > familiar. Hey, community, if you like those other parts, you will need to > fill in > the gaps." To my mind, a feature re-implementation should not be > acceptable until it implements all of the capabilities it is replacing. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > > Swift was tested for older version of Citrix release. There were no code > changes or certification requests, so that area was deprioritized. > > > > Thanks > > /Sudha > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Edison Su [mailto:edison...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:15 AM > > To: 'Chip Childers'; <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > > Subject: RE: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in > > 4.2? > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 6:46 AM > >> To: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>; Edison Su > >> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in > >> 4.2? > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>> Due to object store refactor, Swift is broken. The reason, is that, > >>>> we only > >> have S3 test environment in our lab, so only S3 is tested for now. > >>>> Before adding the feature back, I'd better ask from, the community, > >>>> do > >> we want to support Swift? If so, which version of Swift? This will > >> take some efforts to support Swift, are there any volunteers can help the > integration? > >>> > >>> > >>> Whats the bug ID for this? > >>> Unplanned/Unannounced deprecation of a feature is a blocker IMO. It > >>> engenders a bad relationship with our users, and strands them on > >>> previous versions with no good migration/upgrade path. > >>> > >>> --David > >>> > >> > >> Edison, How broken is it? Is it shorter to fix or revert the object > >> store changes? > > It's not working at all. Not sure, revert object store will change it or > > not, as > this feature is not tested by QA for a long time. > >
