You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> on 2015/07/20 13:48:37 UTC
[PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
LS,
In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
upgrades.
I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
there.
My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
+1?
[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
I am glad this has led to some discussion.
I do not take a strong position into how we solve the issue but want
to make sure we deal with this old code in some way. In terms of
justifying the work to my sponsor, I cannot (or do not want to) afford
to clean all of it nor to investigate into the exact amount of users
still on old versions.
The reason I choose this approach is practical: our present db scheme
is the 4.0.0 scheme with upgrades applied on it. As it is the most
practical/easiest I still stand by it, in full recognition of the
documentation need of course.
At present the opinions seem to be to diverse to get to concensus but
I am sure that is only appearance.
Talking of a 5.0 is there and it seems sensible but a long way. It
makes sense to me to not stop improving the overall quality of the
project untill then and this code is one item we should address. 5.0
is going to involve the API as well.
ignoring defects on coverity would be fine safe that we should then
also make sure the code is not run and specially not copy&pasted.
just some extra oil to burn,
Daan
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Boris Schrijver <bo...@pcextreme.nl> wrote:
> +1 on dropping the pre-4.x upgrade code, if done in a documented manner. Instead
> of voting to drop it now shall we vote to drop it in a future release with
> documentation and put it on the roadmap? Like:
>
> At release 4.6: Initial notice to drop pre-4.x upgrade code at release 5.0.
> At release 4.6: Suppress pre-4.x upgrade code from coverity scan.
> At release 5.0: Drop pre-4.x upgrade code entirely.
> At release 5.0: Create documentation to show upgrade path from pre-4.x to 5.0.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Boris Schrijver
>
>>
>> On July 22, 2015 at 11:42 AM Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -1 to dropping pre-4.x upgrade code. If possible we should suppress the
>> old upgrade files from coverity scan.
>>
>> Reasons:
>> There may be users on pre-4.x versions.
>> Removing a functionality should be associated with proper documentation
>> and an advanced notification in some prior releases. This is similar to the
>> way some API is deprecated and then eventually removed.
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 17:19
>> To: dev
>> Subject: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
>>
>> LS,
>>
>> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
>> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4 upgrades.
>>
>> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that we
>> don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with all upgrade
>> code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can still upgrade to any
>> version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from there.
>>
>> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly see
>> when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>>
>> +1?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
>> --
>> Daan
>>
--
Daan
RE: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Boris Schrijver <bo...@pcextreme.nl>.
+1 on dropping the pre-4.x upgrade code, if done in a documented manner. Instead
of voting to drop it now shall we vote to drop it in a future release with
documentation and put it on the roadmap? Like:
At release 4.6: Initial notice to drop pre-4.x upgrade code at release 5.0.
At release 4.6: Suppress pre-4.x upgrade code from coverity scan.
At release 5.0: Drop pre-4.x upgrade code entirely.
At release 5.0: Create documentation to show upgrade path from pre-4.x to 5.0.
Best regards,
Boris Schrijver
>
> On July 22, 2015 at 11:42 AM Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
> -1 to dropping pre-4.x upgrade code. If possible we should suppress the
> old upgrade files from coverity scan.
>
> Reasons:
> There may be users on pre-4.x versions.
> Removing a functionality should be associated with proper documentation
> and an advanced notification in some prior releases. This is similar to the
> way some API is deprecated and then eventually removed.
>
> -Koushik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 17:19
> To: dev
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
>
> LS,
>
> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4 upgrades.
>
> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that we
> don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with all upgrade
> code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can still upgrade to any
> version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from there.
>
> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly see
> when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>
> +1?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
> --
> Daan
>
RE: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Koushik Das <ko...@citrix.com>.
-1 to dropping pre-4.x upgrade code. If possible we should suppress the old upgrade files from coverity scan.
Reasons:
There may be users on pre-4.x versions.
Removing a functionality should be associated with proper documentation and an advanced notification in some prior releases. This is similar to the way some API is deprecated and then eventually removed.
-Koushik
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 17:19
To: dev
Subject: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
LS,
In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4 upgrades.
I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from there.
My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
+1?
[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
-1 I disagree and shared some of the reasons on the PR.
We may need to ask on users@ to see if there are any users on 2.x or 3.x to find if there are any users on these old versions which should be supported because we can decide to remove 2.x/3.x upgrade paths.
On 20-Jul-2015, at 5:59 pm, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>> wrote:
On 20-07-15 13:48, Daan Hoogland wrote:
LS,
In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
upgrades.
I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
there.
My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
+1?
+1 I don't see a reason to keep supporting these ancient upgrade paths.
Wido
[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
Regards,
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect, ShapeBlue
[cid:9DD97B41-04C5-45F0-92A7-951F3E962F7A]
M. +91 88 262 30892 | rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com>
Blog: bhaisaab.org<http://bhaisaab.org> | Twitter: @_bhaisaab
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge - rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
RE: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Kishan Kavala <Ki...@citrix.com>.
-1 on dropping old upgrade code.
I prefer skipping old upgrade paths during coverity scan instead of removing the code altogether.
Even with multi-step upgrade, user will be forced to register system templates multiple times (once for every step).
Agree with John regarding the need to establish a standard upgrade policy.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Burwell [mailto:john.burwell@shapeblue.com]
Sent: 20 July 2015 09:41 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Daan,
While I see the desire to remove outstanding scan issues, doing it at the expense of a feature required by users is not acceptable to me. My first question is how many users are still running pre-4.x versions? In its current state, the commit message lacks an explanation of the reasoning for the change, and there is no documentation about the change. Until these basic bits of documentation are addressed, and we have a good feel for the user impact, I am -1 on this change.
With this change, I think we should also establish a standard upgrade support policy (e.g. current minor release - x revisions). If a user falls far enough behind, they would be require to execute a multi-step upgrade in order to upgrade to latest. Whatever we decide, it should be clearly documented, and discussed on dev@ and user@.
I am happy to pose these questions on user@ to get a feel for the potential impact of this change and input on the desired upgrade policy.
Thanks,
-John
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com
Please join us at CloudStack Collab EU — http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-collaboration-conference-europe
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in anticipation of loads of +1's I made a new PR (at [2])
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20-07-15 13:48, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> LS,
>>>
>>> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
>>> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
>>> upgrades.
>>>
>>> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
>>> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
>>> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions
>>> can still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on
>>> from there.
>>>
>>> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we
>>> clearly see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>>>
>>> +1?
>>>
>>
>> +1 I don't see a reason to keep supporting these ancient upgrade paths.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
>
> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/608
>
>
> --
> Daan
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>.
Daan,
While I see the desire to remove outstanding scan issues, doing it at the expense of a feature required by users is not acceptable to me. My first question is how many users are still running pre-4.x versions? In its current state, the commit message lacks an explanation of the reasoning for the change, and there is no documentation about the change. Until these basic bits of documentation are addressed, and we have a good feel for the user impact, I am -1 on this change.
With this change, I think we should also establish a standard upgrade support policy (e.g. current minor release - x revisions). If a user falls far enough behind, they would be require to execute a multi-step upgrade in order to upgrade to latest. Whatever we decide, it should be clearly documented, and discussed on dev@ and user@.
I am happy to pose these questions on user@ to get a feel for the potential impact of this change and input on the desired upgrade policy.
Thanks,
-John
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com
Please join us at CloudStack Collab EU — http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/cloudstack-collaboration-conference-europe
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> in anticipation of loads of +1's I made a new PR (at [2])
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20-07-15 13:48, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>>> LS,
>>>
>>> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
>>> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
>>> upgrades.
>>>
>>> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
>>> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
>>> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
>>> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
>>> there.
>>>
>>> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
>>> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>>>
>>> +1?
>>>
>>
>> +1 I don't see a reason to keep supporting these ancient upgrade paths.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
>
> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/608
>
>
> --
> Daan
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
in anticipation of loads of +1's I made a new PR (at [2])
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>
> On 20-07-15 13:48, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>> LS,
>>
>> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
>> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
>> upgrades.
>>
>> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
>> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
>> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
>> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
>> there.
>>
>> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
>> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>>
>> +1?
>>
>
> +1 I don't see a reason to keep supporting these ancient upgrade paths.
>
> Wido
>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
[2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/608
--
Daan
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 20-07-15 13:48, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> LS,
>
> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
> upgrades.
>
> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
> there.
>
> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>
> +1?
>
+1 I don't see a reason to keep supporting these ancient upgrade paths.
Wido
> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 07/21/2015 06:01 PM, Somesh Naidu wrote:
> +1
>
> Reasons:
> 1. Technically speaking, Apache Cloudstack never had version less than 4.0. But even if they are considered they would be EOL'd at some point.
> 2. At some point the feature set disparity between version will make it really complex to have direct upgrade paths.
> 3. As Daan mentioned, 2.x and 3.x users can still upgrade to 4.6+ using a multi-step approach (upgrading to 4.3/4.5 first).
>
+1 I agree. Imho prior to 4.0 isn't really something we want to support.
Upgrade to 4.0 first and then go to a ACS release.
Wido
> Regards,
> Somesh
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbolous@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:30 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
>
> As a user, I'd say +1.
>
> I understand the concerns, but as long as there is a workaround I'm fine
> with it.
>
> Would be great though if the upgrade scripts abort if it notices an upgrade
> from an unsupported versions.
>
> Erik
>
>
> Den mandag 20. juli 2015 skrev Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> følgende:
>
>> LS,
>>
>> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
>> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
>> upgrades.
>>
>> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
>> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
>> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
>> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
>> there.
>>
>> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
>> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>>
>> +1?
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
>> --
>> Daan
>>
RE: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Somesh Naidu <So...@citrix.com>.
+1
Reasons:
1. Technically speaking, Apache Cloudstack never had version less than 4.0. But even if they are considered they would be EOL'd at some point.
2. At some point the feature set disparity between version will make it really complex to have direct upgrade paths.
3. As Daan mentioned, 2.x and 3.x users can still upgrade to 4.6+ using a multi-step approach (upgrading to 4.3/4.5 first).
Regards,
Somesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Weber [mailto:terbolous@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:30 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
As a user, I'd say +1.
I understand the concerns, but as long as there is a workaround I'm fine
with it.
Would be great though if the upgrade scripts abort if it notices an upgrade
from an unsupported versions.
Erik
Den mandag 20. juli 2015 skrev Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
følgende:
> LS,
>
> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
> upgrades.
>
> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
> there.
>
> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>
> +1?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
> --
> Daan
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] drop old upgrade code
Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
As a user, I'd say +1.
I understand the concerns, but as long as there is a workaround I'm fine
with it.
Would be great though if the upgrade scripts abort if it notices an upgrade
from an unsupported versions.
Erik
Den mandag 20. juli 2015 skrev Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
følgende:
> LS,
>
> In coverity the only remaining high impact issues are concerned with
> upgrade code. Some of it is in 4.3 and 4.5 code but most in pre-4
> upgrades.
>
> I addressed the file Upgrade218to22.java in a PR [1] and I move that
> we don't pull it but instead drop the file altogether together with
> all upgrade code dating prior to 4.0.0. anybody on older versions can
> still upgrade to any version between 4.0 and 4.5 and move on from
> there.
>
> My objective is to have no high impact issues remaining so we clearly
> see when we are digressing beit by hand or in an automated way.
>
> +1?
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/603
> --
> Daan
>