> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 9:57 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move forward with 4.1 without a Xen-specific fix for
> CLOUDSTACK-2492?
>
> THere's literally hundreds of other features that work just fine on XCP/Xen.
> What you are complaining against is the nature of time-based releases. The
> drag from 4.1 is jeopardizing 4.2, 4.3, etc, making a mockery of our stated
> goal
> of 3 releases a year.
>
> There's developers who had to pull out their features from 4.1 because it
> wasn't ready by 1/31. Nobody whined asking for a couple more weeks. And
> that was the right thing to do. Now we have developers racing to meet the
> 5/31 deadline for 4.2 and they are being dragged into the quagmire of 4.1,
> which is a perfectly fine release for 99% of the users out there.
>
[Animesh>] I agree we have to draw the line at some point or we can keep
tinkering to make it perfect and then some new issue will come up, we have
maintenance release to iron out issues anyway that we should leverage.
>
> On 5/21/13 7:39 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
> >chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Outback, it would be helpful to understand the harm you are facing
> >>without this fix.
> >> Are you operating a CloudStack cloud already? Have you lost Vms/ lost
> >>data / faced unexplained crashes, or found your cloud unavailable due
> >>to this?
> >> Note that this bug has been there since 2.2
> >>
> >>
> >It would break a current migration path to s3 storage capabilities
> >currently being rolled out for XEN based hypervisors as it was
> >mentioned in the thread. This negates our and others capabilities to be
> >inline with other Hypervisors, and having to wait until a fix/patch can
> >be applied. It also negates current infrastructure design for
> >commercial and private clouds based on XEN/XCP for a more robust
> >storage infrastructure then is currently capable.
> >
> >IMHO, aside from the technical details, your basically telling all XEN
> >infrastructure, too bad. no new s3 infrastructure for you, from my
> >perspective this is both bad practice, and again, leaves XEN/XCP users
> >wanting, and waiting again.....
> >
> >
> >> On 5/21/13 5:59 PM, "Outback Dingo" <outbackdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Chip Childers
> >> ><chip.child...@sungard.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> All,
> >> >>
> >> >> As discussed on another thread [1], we identified a bug
> >> >> (CLOUDSTACK-2492) in the current 3.x system VMs, where the System
> >> >> VMs are not configured to sync their time with either the host HV
> >> >> or an
> >>NTP
> >> >> service. That bug affects the system VMs for all three primary
> >> >>HVs (KVM, Xen and vSphere). Patches have been committed
> >> >>addressing vSphere and KVM. It appears that a correction for Xen
> >> >>would require the
> >>re-build of
> >> >> a system VM image and a full round of regression testing that image.
> >> >>
> >> >> Given that the discussion thread has not resulted in a consensus
> >> >> on
> >>this
> >> >> issue, I unfortunately believe that the only path forward is to
> >> >> call
> >>for
> >> >> a formal VOTE.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please respond with one of the following:
> >> >>
> >> >> +1: proceed with 4.1 without the Xen portion of CLOUDSTACK-2492
> >> >> +being
> >> >> resolved
> >> >> +0: don't care one way or the other
> >> >> -1: do *not* proceed with any further 4.1 release candidates until
> >> >> CLOUDSTACK-2492 has been fully resolved
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >-1 do *not* proceed
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> -chip
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/rw7vciq3r33biasb
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
