On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 09:20:06AM -0700, Alex Huang wrote: > I'm a very strong believer that CloudStack releases should always be > upgradable from previous releases. We can't strand our user base on a > previous release.
Agreed conceptually. Let's be clear though... these users have been stranded for many versions now. I'm OK with focusing on fixing this for 4.1.0... but we need someone(s) to commit to doing the work. > > --Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wei ZHOU [mailto:ustcweiz...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:28 AM > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2 > > > > Half of our platforms are on 2.2.14 (advanced zone with security groups). > > These platform work well. We are looking for a way to upgrade to 4.* for > > more functionalities, so that we do not need to take the difference of > > cloudstack version into account in development. > > > > As I know, the citrix guys are working on this. Jessica Wang said the > > feature > > will be merged into master branch soon.It looks the coding is almost done. > > > > I hope this feature could be included in 4.1, of course. However, we also > > need some days for testing and bug fix. It means cloudstack 4.1 will delay > > for > > uncertain days (it is very bad, right?). It is a difficult choice. > > > > I do not know how many companies are using 2.2.14 (advanced zone with > > security groups) and eager to upgrade. I will join the dev and testing if > > needed. > > > > > > 2013/5/15 Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> > > > > > Sebastian re-opened CLOUDSTACK-2463 due to users wanting to upgrade > > > from 2.x to 4.1. This relates to the security groups feature being > > > available when using VLANs in an advanced networking zone. This > > > feature was apparently broken in the 3.x series, and is not slated to > > > be reintroduced until 4.2. > > > > > > This is a horrible situation, and one that we've now encountered for a > > > third time. > > > > > > IMO, we have 2 very specific options: > > > > > > 1) We pull that new feature into 4.1, and do the relevant testing. > > > > > > 2) We do not pull that feature into 4.1, and release as is with a > > > strong message in the release notes highlighting that we know that 2.x > > > to 4.1 will not support it (and state that those users requiring the > > > feature should wait for 4.2). > > > > > > At this point, I don't have a preference. We probably need to > > > understand the effort for (1), as well as understand who would do that > > > work (dev AND testing). > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -chip > > > >
