Edison, For changes that take as long as described, it should be expected that the review will take a proportional amount of time. In future releases, we should think through ways to divide changes such as these into a set of smaller patches submitted throughout the course of the release cycle.
So far, I can say I am very concerned about failure scenarios and potential race conditions around the NFS cache. However, I am only a quarter of the way through the code so my concerns may be resolved by the end of the process. I am also concerned about the correctness S3 implementation. Why did you choose to directly access the S3 HTTP API rather using the client library? Thanks, -John On May 22, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 1:26 PM >> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:15:41PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:08 PM >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 07:00:51PM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:51 AM >>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE]object_store branch into master >>>>>> >>>>>> Edison, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, I will start going through it today. Based on other >>>>>> $dayjob responsibilities, it may take me a couple of days. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -John >>>>> [Animesh>] John we are just a few days away from 4.2 feature >>>>> freeze, can >>>> you provide your comments by Friday 5/24. I would like all feature >> threads >>>> to be resolved sooner so that we don't have last minute rush. >>>> >>>> I'm just going to comment on this, but not take it much further... >>>> this type of change is an "architectural" change. We had previously >>>> discussed (on several >>>> threads) that the appropriate time for this sort of thing to hit >>>> master was >>>> *early* in the release cycle. Any reason that that consensus >>>> doesn't apply here? >>> [Animesh>] Yes it is an architectural change and discussion on this started >>> a >> few weeks back already, Min and Edison wanted to get it in sooner by 4/30 >> but it took longer than anticipated in preparing for merge and testing on >> feature branch. >> >> You're not following me I think. See this thread on the Javelin merge: >> >> http://markmail.org/message/e6peml5ddkqa6jp4 >> >> We have discussed that our preference is for architectural changes to hit >> master shortly after a feature branch is cut. Why are we not doing that >> here? > > This kind of refactor takes time, a lot of time. I think I worked on the > merge of primary storage refactor into master and bug fixes during > March(http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/14469), > then started to work on the secondary storage refactor in > April(http://markmail.org/message/cspb6xweeupfvpit). Min and I finished the > coding at end of April, then tested for two weeks, send out the merge request > at middle of May. > With the refactor, the storage code will be much cleaner, and the > performance of S3 will be improved, and integration with other storage vendor > will be much easier, and the quality is ok(33 bugs fired, only 5 left: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=text%20~%20%22Object_Store_Refactor%22). > Anyway, it's up to the community to decide, merge it or not, we already > tried our best to get it done ASAP. >
