You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> on 2013/03/06 22:50:20 UTC
Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Hi,
Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
--Sheng
RE: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com>.
Thanks Sheng.
I shall soon submit a patch.
-Radhika
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheng Yang [mailto:sheng@yasker.org]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:30 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>
>> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>
> Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>
> Do others?
>
> Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
I think we're OK with API only.
--Sheng
>
>>
>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>
>>
>> Thank You
>> -Radhika
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>
>> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>> > >>
>> > >> --Sheng
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>> > > that way
>> > myself.
>> >
>> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>> >
>> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential
>> > user to try it. But left UI there without default system vm
>> > template support would be misleading.
>> >
>> > --Sheng
>> >
>>
RE: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Jessica Wang <Je...@citrix.com>.
Chip,
Thanks, I just found your email.
Jessica
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:21 AM
To: Jessica Wang
Cc: Ahmad Emneina; Sheng Yang; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Jessica Wang <Je...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Chip,
>
>> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
> I've submitted a patch to revert UI for IPv6 at Fri 3/8/2013 4:12 PM.
> (The subject of my email is "[ACS41][Patch Request] - Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1")
>
> Could you please review it?
>
> Jessica W
I responded last night.
Did I miss something?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Ahmad Emneina; Sheng Yang
> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do others?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>>>
>>>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>>>
>>>> I think we're OK with API only.
>>>
>>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
>>> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>>
>>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
>>> the UI?
>>
>> Sorry just found I missed the mail.
>>
>> If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or
>> something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is
>> needed?
>
> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank You
>>>>>> -Radhika
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>> <ch...@sungard.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>>>>>>>>> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>>>>>>>>> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>>>>>>>> make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>>>>>>>> that way
>>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>>>>>>> to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>>>>>>> support would be misleading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Sheng
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Jessica Wang <Je...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Chip,
>
>> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
> I've submitted a patch to revert UI for IPv6 at Fri 3/8/2013 4:12 PM.
> (The subject of my email is "[ACS41][Patch Request] - Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1")
>
> Could you please review it?
>
> Jessica W
I responded last night.
Did I miss something?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Ahmad Emneina; Sheng Yang
> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers
>> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do others?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>>>
>>>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>>>
>>>> I think we're OK with API only.
>>>
>>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
>>> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>>
>>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
>>> the UI?
>>
>> Sorry just found I missed the mail.
>>
>> If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or
>> something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is
>> needed?
>
> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank You
>>>>>> -Radhika
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>>> <ch...@sungard.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>>>>>>>>> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>>>>>>>>> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>>>>>>>> make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>>>>>>>> that way
>>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>>>>>>> to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>>>>>>> support would be misleading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Sheng
>
RE: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Jessica Wang <Je...@citrix.com>.
Chip,
> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
I've submitted a patch to revert UI for IPv6 at Fri 3/8/2013 4:12 PM.
(The subject of my email is "[ACS41][Patch Request] - Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1")
Could you please review it?
Jessica W
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:24 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Ahmad Emneina; Sheng Yang
Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>>> >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>> >>
>>> >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>>> >
>>> > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>>> >
>>> > Do others?
>>> >
>>> > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>>
>>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>>
>>> I think we're OK with API only.
>>
>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
>> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>
>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
>> the UI?
>
> Sorry just found I missed the mail.
>
> If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or
> something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is
> needed?
Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
> --Sheng
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank You
>>> >> -Radhika
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>> >>
>>> >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>>> >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> >> > >> Hi,
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>>> >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>>> >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> --Sheng
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>>> >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>>> >> > > that way
>>> >> > myself.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>>> >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>>> >> > support would be misleading.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --Sheng
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>>
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>>> >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>> >>
>>> >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>>> >
>>> > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>>> >
>>> > Do others?
>>> >
>>> > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>>
>>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>>
>>> I think we're OK with API only.
>>
>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
>> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>
>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
>> the UI?
>
> Sorry just found I missed the mail.
>
> If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or
> something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is
> needed?
Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now!
>
> --Sheng
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank You
>>> >> -Radhika
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>> >>
>>> >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>>> >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> >> > >> Hi,
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>>> >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>>> >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> --Sheng
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>>> >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>>> >> > > that way
>>> >> > myself.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>>> >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>>> >> > support would be misleading.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --Sheng
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>>
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers
<ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>> >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>> >>
>> >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>> >
>> > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>> >
>> > Do others?
>> >
>> > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>
>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>
>> I think we're OK with API only.
>
> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>
> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
> the UI?
Sorry just found I missed the mail.
If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or
something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is
needed?
--Sheng
>
>>
>> --Sheng
>> >
>> >>
>> >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thank You
>> >> -Radhika
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>> >>
>> >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>> >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> >> > >> Hi,
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>> >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>> >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> --Sheng
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>> >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>> >> > > that way
>> >> > myself.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>> >> >
>> >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>> >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>> >> > support would be misleading.
>> >> >
>> >> > --Sheng
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
We're in good hands, thanks Radhika!
Ahmad
On Mar 9, 2013, at 1:31 AM, Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Ahmad, I am in the process of documenting the API changes for IPv6 support plus additional info.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:50 AM
> To: Chip Childers
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Sheng Yang
> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>
> Oh no, I'm all for API only access, of ipv6 features, for 4.1. The UI can come down the line... whoever wants to play with this feature will likely be okay with the experimental template downloaded out of band too. Is this going to be documented somewhere?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers
>>> <ch...@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>>>>> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>>>>
>>>>> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>>>>
>>>> Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>>>>
>>>> Do others?
>>>>
>>>> Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>>>
>>> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>>>
>>> I think we're OK with API only.
>>
>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our
>> next feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>
>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it
>> in the UI?
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of
>>>>> documenting
>> this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank You
>>>>> -Radhika
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>>>>
>>>>> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats
>>>>> (system
>> template X).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>>>>>> <ch...@sungard.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for
>>>>>>>> 4.1 release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6
>>>>>>>> to avoid confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we
>>>>>>> should make experimental = API-based configuration only? I
>>>>>>> tend to lean that way
>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for
>>>>>> potential
>> user
>>>>>> to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>>>>>> support would be misleading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Sheng
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
RE: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com>.
Ahmad, I am in the process of documenting the API changes for IPv6 support plus additional info.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 12:50 AM
To: Chip Childers
Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Sheng Yang
Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Oh no, I'm all for API only access, of ipv6 features, for 4.1. The UI can come down the line... whoever wants to play with this feature will likely be okay with the experimental template downloaded out of band too. Is this going to be documented somewhere?
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers
> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
> > >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
> > >>
> > >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
> > >
> > > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
> > >
> > > Do others?
> > >
> > > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
> >
> > In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
> >
> > I think we're OK with API only.
>
> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our
> next feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>
> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it
> in the UI?
>
> >
> > --Sheng
> > >
> > >>
> > >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of
> > >> documenting
> this feature.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank You
> > >> -Radhika
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
> > >>
> > >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats
> > >> (system
> template X).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
> > >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > >> > >> Hi,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for
> > >> > >> 4.1 release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6
> > >> > >> to avoid confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> --Sheng
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we
> > >> > > should make experimental = API-based configuration only? I
> > >> > > tend to lean that way
> > >> > myself.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
> > >> >
> > >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for
> > >> > potential
> user
> > >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> > >> > support would be misleading.
> > >> >
> > >> > --Sheng
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
Oh, sure, it would be documented in the manual.
Then I think API only is fine.
--Sheng
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh no, I'm all for API only access, of ipv6 features, for 4.1. The UI can
> come down the line... whoever wants to play with this feature will likely
> be okay with the experimental template downloaded out of band too. Is this
> going to be documented somewhere?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>> > >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>> > >>
>> > >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>> > >
>> > > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>> > >
>> > > Do others?
>> > >
>> > > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>> >
>> > In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>> >
>> > I think we're OK with API only.
>>
>> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
>> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>>
>> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
>> the UI?
>>
>> >
>> > --Sheng
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting
>> this feature.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thank You
>> > >> -Radhika
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>> > >>
>> > >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system
>> template X).
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>> > >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> > >> > >> Hi,
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>> > >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>> > >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >> --Sheng
>> > >> > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>> > >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>> > >> > > that way
>> > >> > myself.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential
>> user
>> > >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>> > >> > support would be misleading.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --Sheng
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
Oh no, I'm all for API only access, of ipv6 features, for 4.1. The UI can
come down the line... whoever wants to play with this feature will likely
be okay with the experimental template downloaded out of band too. Is this
going to be documented somewhere?
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
> > >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
> > >>
> > >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
> > >
> > > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
> > >
> > > Do others?
> > >
> > > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
> >
> > In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
> >
> > I think we're OK with API only.
>
> Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
> feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
>
> Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
> the UI?
>
> >
> > --Sheng
> > >
> > >>
> > >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting
> this feature.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thank You
> > >> -Radhika
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
> > >>
> > >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system
> template X).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
> > >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > >> > >> Hi,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> > >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> > >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> --Sheng
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
> > >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
> > >> > > that way
> > >> > myself.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
> > >> >
> > >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential
> user
> > >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> > >> > support would be misleading.
> > >> >
> > >> > --Sheng
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
> >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
> >>
> >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
> >
> > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
> >
> > Do others?
> >
> > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>
> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
>
> I think we're OK with API only.
Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next
feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI.
Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in
the UI?
>
> --Sheng
> >
> >>
> >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >> -Radhika
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
> >>
> >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
> >> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >> > >> Hi,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --Sheng
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
> >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
> >> > > that way
> >> > myself.
> >> >
> >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
> >> >
> >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
> >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> >> > support would be misleading.
> >> >
> >> > --Sheng
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
>> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>>
>> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
>
> Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
>
> Do others?
>
> Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread...
I think we're OK with API only.
--Sheng
>
>>
>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>>
>>
>> Thank You
>> -Radhika
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>>
>> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
>> > <ch...@sungard.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>> > >>
>> > >> --Sheng
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
>> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
>> > > that way
>> > myself.
>> >
>> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>> >
>> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
>> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
>> > support would be misleading.
>> >
>> > --Sheng
>> >
>>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote:
> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
>
> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion?
Do others?
Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus?
>
> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
>
>
> Thank You
> -Radhika
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
>
> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> > >>
> > >> --Sheng
> > >>
> > >
> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
> > > that way
> > myself.
> >
> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
> >
> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> > support would be misleading.
> >
> > --Sheng
> >
>
RE: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Radhika Puthiyetath <ra...@citrix.com>.
Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members,
What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ?
API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this feature.
Thank You
-Radhika
-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemneina@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system template X).
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers
> <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> >>
> >> --Sheng
> >>
> >
> > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should
> > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean
> > that way
> myself.
>
> I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>
> If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
> to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> support would be misleading.
>
> --Sheng
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system
template X).
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
> >>
> >> --Sheng
> >>
> >
> > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should make
> > experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean that way
> myself.
>
> I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
>
> If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
> to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
> support would be misleading.
>
> --Sheng
>
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org>.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
>> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
>> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>>
>> --Sheng
>>
>
> So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should make
> experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean that way myself.
I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it.
If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user
to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template
support would be misleading.
--Sheng
Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1
> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid
> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1
>
> --Sheng
>
So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should make
experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean that way myself.