On May 20, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 12:36 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 vs 4.2 >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 03:32:50PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >>> >>> On May 17, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:47 AM >>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>> Cc: 'Chip Childers'; Wei Zhou (w.z...@leaseweb.com) >>>>> Subject: Re: [ACS41] Discuss CLOUDSTACK-2463 being resolved in 4.1 >>>>> vs 4.2 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 17, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Animesh Chaturvedi >>>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So I am confused looks like Nicolas was not using this feature as >>>>>> it was not >>>>> supported for Vmware any way so how is upgrade blocked? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Animesh, I talked with nicolas and the way I understand it is that >>>>> they had to enable SG to set their VLANs in advanced zone the way they >> needed to. >>>>> They actually did not use the SG functionality. Beats me but I >>>>> don't know >>>>> 2.2.14(13) >>>> [Animesh>] I am not sure why would SG be needed to set their VLANs in >> advanced zone? >>> >>> I think only someone with knowledge of 2.2.14 would understand that. >>> >>>> If Anthony's patch is available in 4.1 wouldn't it fix the issue or is it >>>> that >> upgrade gets stuck in intermediate step during upgrade to 4.0? >>> >>> I don't know. My understanding is that Anthony's patch won't be usable for >> vmware hypervisor. >> >> So we are at a bit of an impasse here, and I'm not sure that we have figured >> out what our options might even be. >> >> Here's the situation: >> >> We have people stuck on 2.x right now that were using SG's within Advanced >> Zones. That feature seems to have been dropped from the code from >> before CloudStack was in the ASF. We have work in-progress for >> 4.2 to make that feature a feature again. The 4.2 work does *not* include >> VMware environments. >> >> We have some decisions to make: >> >> Decision 1: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until the work in >> progress >> is complete for Xen and KVM (and tested)? >> > >> Decision 2: Do we wait to release 4.1 (and also 4.2) until *both* the Xen/KVM >> implementation and a VMware implementation exist? >> > [Animesh>] Do we have a requirement to support this feature for VMWare? It > does not look like Nicolas is using this feature and is on VMWare? Wei do you > need this feature for VMWare? > I have asked Nicolas to explain his setup on the list. >> Decision 3: Do we solve the VMware upgrade path by ensuring that the right >> DB bits exist to transition an installation from 2.x to 4.1 in a way that >> drops SG >> support in advanced zones using Vmware HVs? >> > >> Decision 4: Do we keep people in this situation stranded on 2.x? >> >> I'm personally frustrated that we have users stuck on 2.x right now. >> This is happened to us a couple of times since the project came to Apache, >> where the community has found out that something was dropped or >> effectively eaten away by "bit rot". I am, however, thankful that we are >> able >> to make decisions about features health as a community going forward. >> >> I'd appreciate if others can bring their ideas / thoughts to this thread so >> that >> we can move forward. I'm asking for tactical ideas here... If I'm not >> clear on >> the issues as stated so far, correct me please. >> > [Animesh>] Missed functionality is unfortunate but we have to work through > them I see Alena is checking on 3.0.x and Apache branches to find out if > anything else is missing in DB (schema, data) > >> If I don't hear anything over the next day or so, I'm going to start a VOTE >> thread to accept the current state of things as is for 4.1 and move forward >> with a 4.1 release. This is not my preference, but without specific >> suggestions to resolve the problem, there isn't much else I can see doing get >> past our current impasse. >> >> -chip
