John, I'm concerned that object store implementations that's going into 4.2 will repeat this fate if we don't add them into the automated test environment. Perhaps, you, me, Edison, Prassana, and perhaps Thomas can work together about how to add the current implementations into the regression test suite?
--Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:15 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Cc: 'Caleb Call' > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? > > All, > > For me, there are significant issues with the object_store patch. First, it > was > merged to master with a unresolved -1 against it. Second, it merged a > feature depreciation without community consensus. On their own, each of > these actions violate core community values. Cumulatively, I am concerned > that these actions will erode our self governance, collaboration, technical > quality, and community growth. So, as Matt suggested, let's focus on re- > implementing and testing Swift integration, and ensuring that these process > anomalies remain isolated rather than the beginning of a destructive trend. > In that vein, how can I help fill this gap? > > Thanks, > -John > > P.S. I highly suggest the devstack (http://devstack.org) project to get a > Swift > instance up and running. With it, you can build a full OpenStack (including > Swift) environment locally in an hour or two (dependent on Internet > connection speeds). > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:07PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > >> 1. Add swift back is just one or two days work, plus maybe one or two > days, to setup a swift environment. > > > > Great! > > > >> 3. If we add this feature back, will we test it for each release? Such as > adding it into automate test? Right now, I break this feature, I am pretty > sure, > it will be broken by other developers, if we continue adding feature without > test. > > > > Then let's test it until such time that we actually agree to deprecate > > it (if that ever happens). > > > >> 4. Claim a feature is supported for each release without test, is worse > than saying not supported a feature. If we want to support a feature, we > should test it for each release. If so, who will want to test this feature? > > > > As stated earlier, we have a user that's volunteered to test it out > > for us already.
