> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mull...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su
> Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in
> 4.2?
>
> I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion,
> and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried
> that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the
> same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B.
> that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately
> tested in that past releases.
>
> My observations -
> 1. There is not a quick fix here.
> 2. We don't know who can do it.
> 3. We're not sure how to do it properly
> 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original
> version or the newer one.
> 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the
> feature.
> 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis!
>
> Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to
> jeopardize 4.2 timely release.
>
> Suggestion:
> Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't
> validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we
> don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and
> lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at
> the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to
> do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base
> too.
>
> We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions.
> We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate
> priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of
> 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes
> out with 4.2.1 asap.
>
> So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-)
>
> Ready, setŠ fire!
> Matt
>
[Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I agree if we
can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given that we are 3 weeks
away from code freeze any uncertainties either needs to be addressed or we need
to defer them.
>
>
> On 7/9/13 5:23 PM, "Animesh Chaturvedi" <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:57 AM
> >> 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 Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com]
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM
> >> > > 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 Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote:
> >> > > > 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?
> >> > >
> >> > > We, as a community. It's *always* that answer.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok...
> >> > > let's see if others have opinions about this though.
> >> > >
> >> > > Heres how I see it:
> >> > >
> >> > > Pros -
> >> > > * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support
> >> > > * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec
> >> > > * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces
> the
> >> > > long-term support / test efforts
> >> > >
> >> > > Cons -
> >> > > * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only
> >> have the
> >> > > native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm
> >> > > not
> >> aware
> >> > > of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
> >> >
> >> > I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input
> >> > from
> >> users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift,
> >> what we are talking about here is just hypothetic.
> >> > If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need
> >> > to
> >> get domain expert involved in the discuss.
> >>
> >> Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this
> >> integration? If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on
> >> the discussion?
> >>
> >[Animesh>] I followed up with $dayjob product manager, there was a
> >customer who was interested in this integration a while back but did
> >not end up using it.
> >> >
> >> > > * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could).
> >> > >
> >> > > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or
> >> > > better than other
> >> > > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach.
> >> > >
> >> > > Others?
> >> >
