Adding relevant folks from previous discussions of this feature to the CC list.
One other note... From what I can tell, the work intended for 4.2 to re-enable security groups within an advanced zone is limited to Xen and KVM. I believe that Nicolas (the issue reporter) is using VMware. We do have a note from Wei (below) highlighting his desire to see this feature as well (although, Wei, what HV are you using?). Thoughts on what to do? -chip 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. > > --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 > > > >
