Min, In my opinion, it is a blocker because it is very misleading to operations, and once the name ships in documentation/UI/APIs it will essentially irreversible. Furthermore, as a community, we agreed to make this change in late May/early June. In view, community decisions for a release that are not carried in a release should become a blocker.
I added a comment the following comment to the ticket which, I hope, will answer your question: Min, Ideally, both. However, given the short window, the priority is for all user visible elements (e.g. API, UI, configuration files, documentation, etc). If we do not have time address code, please open a task ticket to refactor the naming internally for post-4.2.0 work. Thanks, -John Thanks, -John On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > I saw the blocker defect filed by you regarding this Nomenclature > issue(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3818). Honestly > speaking, this does not qualify as a BLOCKER since it is not blocking any > functionality. One question I commented on the bug is: do you want to change > our UI to call out as "Staging Storage" wherever we have Cache Storage > showing up? Or you want us to change all our internal code class and method > name (like needCacheStorage, etc) to use a different class/method name? We > can do former quite easily, for latter, I don't think that it is that urgent > compared to fixing other real functional blockers and criticals for 4.2 > release, since that is internal implementation which will be totally shielded > from CloudStack user. > Please share your thoughts on this. > > Thanks > -min > > From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > Date: Saturday, July 20, 2013 3:18 AM > To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Cc: Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com>, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > NFS Staging it was in my recollection. > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >> All, >> >> It was my understanding that we had agreed to rename the "NFS Cache" >> mechanism to reflect that it is not a cache and remove the assumption that >> it will always be backed by NFS. Is my understanding correct? >> >> Thanks, >> -John >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
