nuary 2013 11:26 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
Doc subtasks for corresponding eng subtasks seems fine to me...
Jessica T.
CloudStack Tech Pubs
-Original Message-
From: Radhika Puthiyetath [mailto:radhika.puthiyet...@citrix.com]
Sent: M
-Original Message-
From: Kishan Kavala [mailto:kishan.kav...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 5:55 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
751, 752, 754 and 756 have corresponding doc bugs as sub-tasks. Probably Jira
doesn't allow multi-
Message-
From: Kishan Kavala [mailto:kishan.kav...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 5:55 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
751, 752, 754 and 756 have corresponding doc bugs as sub-tasks. Probably Jira
doesn't allow multi-level sub
, 14 December 2012 10:19 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
>
>Sure, Hugo. I can add that. As you said, longer term, we should make
>this work with an SDN based solution as well.
>
>Regards,
>Manan Shah
>
>
>
>
>On 12/14/12 5:3
to myself the items which I plan to work on.
>>
>>Bug numbers: 746 to 768 (except 756)
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com]
>>Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 10:19 PM
>>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject
t;>installation like Nicira NVP.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Hugo
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:30 AM
>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>
...@citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2012 10:19 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
Sure, Hugo. I can add that. As you said, longer term, we should make this work
with an SDN based solution as well.
Regards,
Manan Shah
On 12/14/12 5:32 AM, "Hugo Trip
...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:30 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
>>
>> Thanks David for brining a good point regarding 2.18. You are correct
>>that a
>> VLAN should not be exposed
e-
> From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:30 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
>
> Thanks David for brining a good point regarding 2.18. You are correct that a
> VLAN shoul
Thanks David for brining a good point regarding 2.18. You are correct that
a VLAN should not be exposed to an end user. I will re-word the
requirement to make it more specific for an admin to assign a VLAN.
Regards,
Manan Shah
On 12/13/12 1:24 PM, "David Nalley" wrote:
>It's very hard to hav
It's very hard to have a discussion here when all of the information
to be discussed is elsewhere. Please consider posting it here for the
discussion.
WRT 2.18 - Allowing an end user to assign a VLAN ID strikes me as
very undesirable. First, it allows users to have insight into the
underlying inf
Adding to the feature request sheet
-kd
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com]
>>>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:44 AM
>>>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>Subject: [ASFCS41] nTier Apps 2.0
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I would like to propose a new f
12 matches
Mail list logo
