> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:26 PM > To: Edison Su > Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 05:15:19PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > > > > > > > -----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. > > > > > > So any idea what the effort of fixing it looks like? I mean, just because it
If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to support Swift. But who will make the decision? > wasn't tested in the last couple of releases doesn't necessarily mean that it > wasn't working. As Sudha mentioned, it wasn't tested only because of a lack > of change that triggered the expected need to perform regression testing of > that feature. > > I believe that this was an honest mistake, but we need to figure out what to > do. I'm -1 on us saying "we'll drop Swift support". If necessary, I'd say > that > we need to roll back the object-store branch merge... I don't want to see > that happen though. That's why I'm asking about effort to fix it. > > -chip
