You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> on 2012/10/17 20:25:43 UTC

Drop OVM in 4.0?

Hi All,
   Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0 branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)), OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
   It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
I think this is the best outcome and compromise.

+1 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:38 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Possible, as the OVM code is in its own separate folder, the OVM fix will not impact other code at all.
We can have 4.0.x release to fix OVM.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelcey Damage (BBITS) [mailto:kelcey@bbits.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:28 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the 
> official 4.1?
> 
> KELCEY DAMAGE
> Infrastructure Systems Architect
> www.backbonetechnology.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> --
> kelcey@bbits.ca
> 
> address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
> tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114
> fax: +1 604 605 0964
> skype: kelcey.damage
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the 
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to 
> work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
I think this is the best outcome and compromise.

+1 

-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:38 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Possible, as the OVM code is in its own separate folder, the OVM fix will not impact other code at all.
We can have 4.0.x release to fix OVM.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelcey Damage (BBITS) [mailto:kelcey@bbits.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:28 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the 
> official 4.1?
> 
> KELCEY DAMAGE
> Infrastructure Systems Architect
> www.backbonetechnology.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> --
> kelcey@bbits.ca
> 
> address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
> tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114
> fax: +1 604 605 0964
> skype: kelcey.damage
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the 
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to 
> work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
Possible, as the OVM code is in its own separate folder, the OVM fix will not impact other code at all.
We can have 4.0.x release to fix OVM.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelcey Damage (BBITS) [mailto:kelcey@bbits.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:28 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the
> official 4.1?
> 
> KELCEY DAMAGE
> Infrastructure Systems Architect
> www.backbonetechnology.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> kelcey@bbits.ca
> 
> address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
> tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114  
> fax: +1 604 605 0964
> skype: kelcey.damage
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work),
> will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
Possible, as the OVM code is in its own separate folder, the OVM fix will not impact other code at all.
We can have 4.0.x release to fix OVM.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelcey Damage (BBITS) [mailto:kelcey@bbits.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:28 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the
> official 4.1?
> 
> KELCEY DAMAGE
> Infrastructure Systems Architect
> www.backbonetechnology.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> kelcey@bbits.ca
> 
> address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
> tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114  
> fax: +1 604 605 0964
> skype: kelcey.damage
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work),
> will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the official 4.1?

KELCEY DAMAGE 
Infrastructure Systems Architect 
www.backbonetechnology.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
kelcey@bbits.ca 

address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114    
fax: +1 604 605 0964 
skype: kelcey.damage 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Hi All,
   Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0 branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)), OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
   It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
Could OVM be made a hot fix post 4.0 release, but not held to the official 4.1?

KELCEY DAMAGE 
Infrastructure Systems Architect 
www.backbonetechnology.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
kelcey@bbits.ca 

address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114    
fax: +1 604 605 0964 
skype: kelcey.damage 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Hi All,
   Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0 branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)), OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
   It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>> There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive.
>> But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage
>> and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization market
>> is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the only
>> problem I'd defer the fix.
>
> The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%.
>
> If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd be
> one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting
> 4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address OVM
> support in a timely fashion after, if at all.
>
> If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so
> clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the
> opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does,
> that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting down
> the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable
> expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM support.


So not to beat the testing drum incessantly, but to slightly diverge
from your point: Feature decisions shouldn't be decided by atrophy or
entropy. They should be conscious decisions taken by the project. To
Will's earlier comment that OVM has apparently been broken since
3.0.0, suggests that our feature list exceeds our testing capability.
We've had this same problem with other features back in 2.2.x - they
were deemed a good idea for one release, and were not tested again,
and proceeded to be unknowingly broken until someone decided to try it
and found that it didn't work (the original EIP/ELB implementation).
The cost of a feature is larger than initial development.

In the end though, no one has stood up and volunteered to own the OVM
hypervisor (even if not for 4.0); unless that changes I assume OVM is
dead within CloudStack.

--David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Caleb Call <ca...@me.com>.
On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:00:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
>> Nobody complains OVM doesn't work in 4.0 before, means nobody use and
>> test it on 4.0 branch since half year ago when we starting to work on
>> 4.0 release.
> 
> "Since half a year ago"?
> 
> Let's be realistic. How long has the 4.0 branch been in a state that
> people could test it, if they're not developers? Two months? It's not
> half a year by a long stretch. (Remember, we're talking about users and
> folks deploying CloudStack, not folks who are watching git and compiling
> it themselves.) 
> 
> When 3.0 was released, upgrading from 2.2 was not supported:
> 
> http://www.cloudstack.org/blog/117-cloudstack-acton-released.html
> 
> So let's recap: 
> 
> 4.0 hasn't been in a state to test realistically for more than two
> months - and that's being generous. 
> 
> The 3.0 release was not recommended for upgrades - so 2.2 users who did
> have OVM support wouldn't have tried to upgrade. Shortly after, the move
> to Apache was announced and the open source version effectively froze at
> 3.0.2. It's also not like every 2.2.x user has rushed to upgrade
> immediately. 
> 
> At least one user has spoken up on cloudstack-user to voice support for
> OVM. I don't know how many folks don't read the lists and aren't aware
> of the potential for it to be dropped. Having been through this scenario
> before when openSUSE dropped PPC, I'm guessing we will hear from folks
> after the 4.0.0-incubating release actually hits the streets and the few
> OVM users who were hoping to upgrade can't. 
> 
> If nothing else, I hope this is the only time this kind of feature
> attrition happens without giving folks due notice to pick up the
> feature.
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://dissociatedpress.net/

I think I'm the one you're referring to speaking up on the users list.  We currently are not using OVM under Cloudstack but it's on our near term project list (we were hoping in the next month to start that piece).  The Oracle Management tools are an abortion at best, so Cloudstack was very attractive because we could pull all our virtualization management under one roof.  So I'm 100% in favor keeping OVM support, however, not being a developer means I can contribute by submitting bugs, feature requests, etc but I'm not able to take any kind of development ownership of this feature.

Not being a developer, I don't know the answer to this from a code stand-point, but OVM is a fork of Xen, how much different are they to support?

My points were similar to what Joe has been saying, if it's dropping, that's fine but even in 3.x, the claim was there that it supported OVM (wether it worked or not doesn't matter, IMO).  If it's not in 4.0, I also don't think that's a deal breaker for us, but I'd like to know that it will be in 4.0.x or even 4.1, just that the support will continue to be there.  I also brought up the concern that if there is a customer currently using OVM, and they upgrade to 4.0, they'll have a broken environment.  So the upgrade ought to include something that checks for OVM use, if it's there it fails to upgrade.  Users may be upset that they can't upgrade, but atleast their environments won't be broken.

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:00:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
> Nobody complains OVM doesn't work in 4.0 before, means nobody use and
> test it on 4.0 branch since half year ago when we starting to work on
> 4.0 release.

"Since half a year ago"?

Let's be realistic. How long has the 4.0 branch been in a state that
people could test it, if they're not developers? Two months? It's not
half a year by a long stretch. (Remember, we're talking about users and
folks deploying CloudStack, not folks who are watching git and compiling
it themselves.) 

When 3.0 was released, upgrading from 2.2 was not supported:

http://www.cloudstack.org/blog/117-cloudstack-acton-released.html

So let's recap: 

4.0 hasn't been in a state to test realistically for more than two
months - and that's being generous. 

The 3.0 release was not recommended for upgrades - so 2.2 users who did
have OVM support wouldn't have tried to upgrade. Shortly after, the move
to Apache was announced and the open source version effectively froze at
3.0.2. It's also not like every 2.2.x user has rushed to upgrade
immediately. 

At least one user has spoken up on cloudstack-user to voice support for
OVM. I don't know how many folks don't read the lists and aren't aware
of the potential for it to be dropped. Having been through this scenario
before when openSUSE dropped PPC, I'm guessing we will hear from folks
after the 4.0.0-incubating release actually hits the streets and the few
OVM users who were hoping to upgrade can't. 

If nothing else, I hope this is the only time this kind of feature
attrition happens without giving folks due notice to pick up the
feature.
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb
http://dissociatedpress.net/

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
+1 to fix it for 4.0.1 version
-1 to drop it

-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:05 PM
To: <cl...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Also, if it hasn't worked in several past non-Apache releases, are we really dropping support now?

I'm -1 for considering it a blocker for 4.0.0-incubating. It can always be added back / fixed / whatever if someone cares about doing that.

I say we move forward without changing the current state (I.e.: it doesn't work)

- chip

Sent from my iPhone.

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:16 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:54:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
>>> Yesterday, I read a blog talking about open source
>>> project(http://blog.ometer.com/2012/03/15/a-few-thoughts-on-open-
>> projects-with-mention-of-scala/),
>>> in the " Project direction and priorities " section, which makes
>> sense
>>> to me:
>>>
>>> "An open project and its community are the sum of individual people
>> doing
>>> what they care about. It's flat-out wrong to think that any healthy 
>>> open project is a pool of developers who can be assigned priorities 
>>> that "make sense" globally. There's no product manager. The 
>>> community priorities are simply the union of all community-member priorities."
>>
>> No disagreement. But there's another tradition in healthy open source 
>> communities of letting people know ahead of time that something is 
>> being orphaned. That didn't happen here.
>
> Nobody complains OVM doesn't work in 4.0 before, means nobody use and test it on 4.0 branch since half year ago when we starting to work on 4.0 release.
> And CloudStack 3.0.x release doesn't support OVM also, at least, I can't find any information about OVM in http://download.cloud.com/releases/3.0.0/CloudStack3.0AdminGuide.pdf.
> If no user and developer cares/complains about a feature for such a 
> long time, is it safe to say "people are really doing what they care 
> about"?:)
>
>>
>>> Take OVM as an example, apparently, it's not in the Citrix's
>> CloudPlatform
>>> team's highest priority. If other people want this feature, the idea 
>>> situation is to pick it up by yourself. I think Marcus set a great
>> example
>>> about how to work with community under this situation. We, the
>> community,
>>> are open to bug fix, feature enhancement etc.
>>
>> And that works fine if we, the community, communicate about things 
>> that are going to be dropped so that others have time to pick them up.
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://dissociatedpress.net/
>

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Also, if it hasn't worked in several past non-Apache releases, are we
really dropping support now?

I'm -1 for considering it a blocker for 4.0.0-incubating. It can
always be added back / fixed / whatever if someone cares about doing
that.

I say we move forward without changing the current state (I.e.: it doesn't work)

- chip

Sent from my iPhone.

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:16 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:54:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
>>> Yesterday, I read a blog talking about open source
>>> project(http://blog.ometer.com/2012/03/15/a-few-thoughts-on-open-
>> projects-with-mention-of-scala/),
>>> in the " Project direction and priorities " section, which makes
>> sense
>>> to me:
>>>
>>> "An open project and its community are the sum of individual people
>> doing
>>> what they care about. It's flat-out wrong to think that any healthy
>>> open project is a pool of developers who can be assigned priorities
>>> that "make sense" globally. There's no product manager. The community
>>> priorities are simply the union of all community-member priorities."
>>
>> No disagreement. But there's another tradition in healthy open source
>> communities of letting people know ahead of time that something is
>> being
>> orphaned. That didn't happen here.
>
> Nobody complains OVM doesn't work in 4.0 before, means nobody use and test it on 4.0 branch since half year ago when we starting to work on 4.0 release.
> And CloudStack 3.0.x release doesn't support OVM also, at least, I can't find any information about OVM in http://download.cloud.com/releases/3.0.0/CloudStack3.0AdminGuide.pdf.
> If no user and developer cares/complains about a feature for such a long time, is it safe to say "people are really doing what they care about"?:)
>
>>
>>> Take OVM as an example, apparently, it's not in the Citrix's
>> CloudPlatform
>>> team's highest priority. If other people want this feature, the idea
>>> situation is to pick it up by yourself. I think Marcus set a great
>> example
>>> about how to work with community under this situation. We, the
>> community,
>>> are open to bug fix, feature enhancement etc.
>>
>> And that works fine if we, the community, communicate about things that
>> are going to be dropped so that others have time to pick them up.
>> --
>> Joe Brockmeier
>> Twitter: @jzb
>> http://dissociatedpress.net/
>

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Brockmeier [mailto:jzb@zonker.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:54:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
> > Yesterday, I read a blog talking about open source
> > project(http://blog.ometer.com/2012/03/15/a-few-thoughts-on-open-
> projects-with-mention-of-scala/),
> > in the " Project direction and priorities " section, which makes
> sense
> > to me:
> >
> > "An open project and its community are the sum of individual people
> doing
> > what they care about. It's flat-out wrong to think that any healthy
> > open project is a pool of developers who can be assigned priorities
> > that "make sense" globally. There's no product manager. The community
> > priorities are simply the union of all community-member priorities."
> 
> No disagreement. But there's another tradition in healthy open source
> communities of letting people know ahead of time that something is
> being
> orphaned. That didn't happen here.

Nobody complains OVM doesn't work in 4.0 before, means nobody use and test it on 4.0 branch since half year ago when we starting to work on 4.0 release.
And CloudStack 3.0.x release doesn't support OVM also, at least, I can't find any information about OVM in http://download.cloud.com/releases/3.0.0/CloudStack3.0AdminGuide.pdf.
If no user and developer cares/complains about a feature for such a long time, is it safe to say "people are really doing what they care about"?:)

> 
> > Take OVM as an example, apparently, it's not in the Citrix's
> CloudPlatform
> > team's highest priority. If other people want this feature, the idea
> > situation is to pick it up by yourself. I think Marcus set a great
> example
> > about how to work with community under this situation. We, the
> community,
> > are open to bug fix, feature enhancement etc.
> 
> And that works fine if we, the community, communicate about things that
> are going to be dropped so that others have time to pick them up.
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:54:03PM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
> Yesterday, I read a blog talking about open source
> project(http://blog.ometer.com/2012/03/15/a-few-thoughts-on-open-projects-with-mention-of-scala/),
> in the " Project direction and priorities " section, which makes sense
> to me:
> 
> "An open project and its community are the sum of individual people doing
> what they care about. It's flat-out wrong to think that any healthy
> open project is a pool of developers who can be assigned priorities
> that "make sense" globally. There's no product manager. The community
> priorities are simply the union of all community-member priorities."

No disagreement. But there's another tradition in healthy open source
communities of letting people know ahead of time that something is being
orphaned. That didn't happen here. 

> Take OVM as an example, apparently, it's not in the Citrix's CloudPlatform
> team's highest priority. If other people want this feature, the idea
> situation is to pick it up by yourself. I think Marcus set a great example
> about how to work with community under this situation. We, the community,
> are open to bug fix, feature enhancement etc.

And that works fine if we, the community, communicate about things that
are going to be dropped so that others have time to pick them up. 
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb
http://dissociatedpress.net/

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.
Yesterday, I read a blog talking about open source project(http://blog.ometer.com/2012/03/15/a-few-thoughts-on-open-projects-with-mention-of-scala/), in the " Project direction and priorities " section, which makes sense to me:

"An open project and its community are the sum of individual people doing what they care about. It's flat-out wrong to think that any healthy open project is a pool of developers who can be assigned priorities that "make sense" globally. There's no product manager. The community priorities are simply the union of all community-member priorities."

Take OVM as an example, apparently, it's not in the Citrix's CloudPlatform team's highest priority. If other people want this feature, the idea situation is to pick it up by yourself. I think Marcus set a great example about how to work with community under this situation. We, the community, are open to bug fix, feature enhancement etc. 
I like to hear the voice from OVM user or developer. How many users are caring about OVM? Is there any other developer, other than people coming from Citrix, can or want fix OVM issues? Is it acceptable to move OVM to 4.0.x release?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:54 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Is there anyone actually using OVM that is involved here on the dev
> list? The reason I ask is because I initially got involved with
> cloudstack development because CLVM was being dropped, and I needed
> it. If there are resources among Citrix or elsewhere to work on OVM
> that's great, then perhaps we can commit to having it ready for the
> first point release, and current OVM customers can wait. But to some
> extent it seems like development of features should be driven or
> helped along by a portion of those who use them. Even if it's just an
> admin watching the dev list and saying "hey, we use and need this". If
> there isn't a lot of that, then support for those features are at the
> mercy of whomever cares to take it up.
> 
> I'm not really familiar with the new/old OVM versions, however if I
> were an OVM user I wouldn't be horribly upset if I simply had to wait
> for a point release. Now dropping it altogether is a different story.
> I would think at the very least the old version of OVM should be
> supported, with a notice in the 4.0 notes that it's legacy and will
> not be updated in future releases. The cloudstack sort of owes them
> that much for taking on support in the first place, IMO.  Supporting
> the new version is a renewal of future commitment, whereas legacy
> supprt is just a gesture to those with existing deployments.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote:
> >> There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be
> definitive.
> >> But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage
> >> and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization
> market
> >> is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the
> only
> >> problem I'd defer the fix.
> >
> > The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have
> > deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have
> > deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%.
> >
> > If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd
> be
> > one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting
> > 4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address
> OVM
> > support in a timely fashion after, if at all.
> >
> > If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so
> > clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the
> > opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does,
> > that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting
> down
> > the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable
> > expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM
> support.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Joe
> > --
> > Joe Brockmeier
> > Twitter: @jzb
> > http://dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
Is there anyone actually using OVM that is involved here on the dev
list? The reason I ask is because I initially got involved with
cloudstack development because CLVM was being dropped, and I needed
it. If there are resources among Citrix or elsewhere to work on OVM
that's great, then perhaps we can commit to having it ready for the
first point release, and current OVM customers can wait. But to some
extent it seems like development of features should be driven or
helped along by a portion of those who use them. Even if it's just an
admin watching the dev list and saying "hey, we use and need this". If
there isn't a lot of that, then support for those features are at the
mercy of whomever cares to take it up.

I'm not really familiar with the new/old OVM versions, however if I
were an OVM user I wouldn't be horribly upset if I simply had to wait
for a point release. Now dropping it altogether is a different story.
I would think at the very least the old version of OVM should be
supported, with a notice in the 4.0 notes that it's legacy and will
not be updated in future releases. The cloudstack sort of owes them
that much for taking on support in the first place, IMO.  Supporting
the new version is a renewal of future commitment, whereas legacy
supprt is just a gesture to those with existing deployments.


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>> There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive.
>> But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage
>> and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization market
>> is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the only
>> problem I'd defer the fix.
>
> The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have
> deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%.
>
> If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd be
> one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting
> 4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address OVM
> support in a timely fashion after, if at all.
>
> If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so
> clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the
> opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does,
> that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting down
> the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable
> expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM support.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://dissociatedpress.net/

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:10:35AM -0700, Kevin Kluge wrote:
> There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive.
> But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage
> and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization market
> is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the only
> problem I'd defer the fix.

The thing is, even if it's a small percentage of users that have
deployed CloudStack + OVM, we'd be disappointing the shops that have
deployed CloudStack + OVM 100%. 

If we were discussing why we should phase out support for OVM, it'd be
one thing - but what seems to be on the table right now is letting
4.0.0-incubating out the door with no guarantee that we'll address OVM
support in a timely fashion after, if at all.

If the project is going to phase something out, we need to say so
clearly and loudly ahead of time so interested parties have the
opportunity to get involved and take over the feature. If nobody does,
that's fine - but right now I'm concerned we're going to be letting down
the users who have adopted CloudStack with OVM who had a reasonable
expectation that the 4.0.0-incubating release would include OVM support. 

Best, 

Joe
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb
http://dissociatedpress.net/

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Kevin Kluge <Ke...@citrix.com>.
There's nothing in CloudStack to track that so we cannot be definitive.  But, it can't be many.  We have seen few questions about its usage and integration.  And OVM's share of the server virtualization market is quite low.   Given limited user impact, if this is really the only problem I'd defer the fix.

-kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Do we have any idea how many CS users use OVM?
> 
> I suspect I know the answer to that...so, do we want to consider adding
> (optional) code in the future to phone home with some usage stats?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kinsella [mailto:jlk@stratosec.co]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:04 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> I suspect I know the answer to that...so, do we want to consider adding
> (optional) code in the future to phone home with some usage stats?
> 

This phone home feature is something I would love to see in the product.  We just haven't had the time to implement such a thing.

Will

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by John Kinsella <jl...@stratosec.co>.
Do we have any idea how many CS users use OVM?

I suspect I know the answer to that…so, do we want to consider adding (optional) code in the future to phone home with some usage stats?

On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:

> It will take > week to get the existing OVM support to work again.  The reason being CloudPlatform doesn't have this working in our recent releases since Acton.  Adding support for the latest OVM will take even longer.
> 
> I would vote to have OVM be fixed in a later 4.0.x release.
> 
> Will
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:12 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>> 
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>>> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
>>>> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based
>> releases".
>>>> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were
>>>> essentially code-complete for this reason.
>>>> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
>>>> There is just too much uncertainty.
>>>> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
>>>> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
>>> 
>>> We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but we're
>>> not quite there yet.
>>> 
>>> IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support
>>> upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and
>>> Brocade were not in those releases - OVM was.
>> 
>> That certainly was the case, but we might need to rethink that assumption.
>> There are really 2 issues: supporting the latest version of OVM and / or
>> fixing the previous OVM support.
>> 
>> I understand the point about supporting the latest OVM version being "at
>> least > 1 week".  I haven't seen any answer to "fixing" the issues for the
>> previously supported OVM version.  Does anyone have a good handle on
>> that effort?  If it's equal or similar to making it work on the latest OVM,
>> then perhaps we are talking about the same thing...
>> If they are significantly different efforts, then we have to make a different
>> decision.
>> 
>>> It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear
>>> timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's
>>> going to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be
>>> working on this feature and we're expecting it to be in master within
>>> two weeks of shipping 4.0.0-incubating).
>> 
>> Or at least a reasonable estimate for the different versions of "fixing" this
>> problem (per my question above).
>> 
>>> Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an
>>> attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users
>>> who depend on OVM.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> [1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform
>>> --
>>> Joe Brockmeier
>>> Twitter: @jzb
>>> http://dissociatedpress.net/
>>> 
> 

Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
o: 415.315.9385
@johnlkinsella

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Jessica Tomechak <Je...@citrix.com>.
So, we should drop mention of OVM in CloudStack docs? There are a couple of mentions, such as in the adding-a-host section.

Jessica T.
CloudStack Tech Pubs


-----Original Message-----
From: Will Chan [mailto:will.chan@citrix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:02 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

It will take > week to get the existing OVM support to work again.  The reason being CloudPlatform doesn't have this working in our recent releases since Acton.  Adding support for the latest OVM will take even longer.

I would vote to have OVM be fixed in a later 4.0.x release.

Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:12 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> >> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based
> releases".
> >> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were 
> >> essentially code-complete for this reason.
> >> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
> >> There is just too much uncertainty.
> >> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, 
> >> which would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
> >
> > We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but 
> > we're not quite there yet.
> >
> > IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support 
> > upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and 
> > Brocade were not in those releases - OVM was.
> 
> That certainly was the case, but we might need to rethink that assumption.
> There are really 2 issues: supporting the latest version of OVM and / 
> or fixing the previous OVM support.
> 
> I understand the point about supporting the latest OVM version being 
> "at least > 1 week".  I haven't seen any answer to "fixing" the issues 
> for the previously supported OVM version.  Does anyone have a good 
> handle on that effort?  If it's equal or similar to making it work on 
> the latest OVM, then perhaps we are talking about the same thing...
> If they are significantly different efforts, then we have to make a 
> different decision.
> 
> > It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear 
> > timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's 
> > going to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be 
> > working on this feature and we're expecting it to be in master 
> > within two weeks of shipping 4.0.0-incubating).
> 
> Or at least a reasonable estimate for the different versions of 
> "fixing" this problem (per my question above).
> 
> > Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an 
> > attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users 
> > who depend on OVM.
> 
> +1
> 
> > [1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform
> > --
> > Joe Brockmeier
> > Twitter: @jzb
> > http://dissociatedpress.net/
> >

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
It will take > week to get the existing OVM support to work again.  The reason being CloudPlatform doesn't have this working in our recent releases since Acton.  Adding support for the latest OVM will take even longer.

I would vote to have OVM be fixed in a later 4.0.x release.

Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:12 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> >> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> >> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based
> releases".
> >> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were
> >> essentially code-complete for this reason.
> >> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
> >> There is just too much uncertainty.
> >> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
> >> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
> >
> > We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but we're
> > not quite there yet.
> >
> > IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support
> > upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and
> > Brocade were not in those releases - OVM was.
> 
> That certainly was the case, but we might need to rethink that assumption.
> There are really 2 issues: supporting the latest version of OVM and / or
> fixing the previous OVM support.
> 
> I understand the point about supporting the latest OVM version being "at
> least > 1 week".  I haven't seen any answer to "fixing" the issues for the
> previously supported OVM version.  Does anyone have a good handle on
> that effort?  If it's equal or similar to making it work on the latest OVM,
> then perhaps we are talking about the same thing...
> If they are significantly different efforts, then we have to make a different
> decision.
> 
> > It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear
> > timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's
> > going to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be
> > working on this feature and we're expecting it to be in master within
> > two weeks of shipping 4.0.0-incubating).
> 
> Or at least a reasonable estimate for the different versions of "fixing" this
> problem (per my question above).
> 
> > Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an
> > attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users
> > who depend on OVM.
> 
> +1
> 
> > [1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform
> > --
> > Joe Brockmeier
> > Twitter: @jzb
> > http://dissociatedpress.net/
> >

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
>> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
>> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially
>> code-complete for this reason.
>> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There
>> is just too much uncertainty.
>> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
>> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
>
> We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but we're
> not quite there yet.
>
> IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support
> upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and Brocade
> were not in those releases - OVM was.

That certainly was the case, but we might need to rethink that
assumption.  There are really 2 issues: supporting the latest version
of OVM and / or fixing the previous OVM support.

I understand the point about supporting the latest OVM version being
"at least > 1 week".  I haven't seen any answer to "fixing" the issues
for the previously supported OVM version.  Does anyone have a good
handle on that effort?  If it's equal or similar to making it work on
the latest OVM, then perhaps we are talking about the same thing...
If they are significantly different efforts, then we have to make a
different decision.

> It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear
> timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's going
> to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be working on
> this feature and we're expecting it to be in master within two weeks of
> shipping 4.0.0-incubating).

Or at least a reasonable estimate for the different versions of
"fixing" this problem (per my question above).

> Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an
> attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users who
> depend on OVM.

+1

> [1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://dissociatedpress.net/
>

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:50:41PM -0700, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially
> code-complete for this reason.
> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There
> is just too much uncertainty.
> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0

We do need to make tough decisions for time-based releases, but we're
not quite there yet. 

IIRC one of the criteria for 4.0.0-incubating is that we'd support
upgrades from prior releases of CloudStack[1] and AutoScale and Brocade
were not in those releases - OVM was.

It might be easier for folks to make a decision if we had a clear
timeline for a 4.0.x release with OVM support and some idea who's going
to be picking that up. (e.g., something like "Edison will be working on
this feature and we're expecting it to be in master within two weeks of
shipping 4.0.0-incubating). 

Holding the release up for an additional week (or longer) is not an
attractive option, but neither is letting down a whole set of users who
depend on OVM. 

[1]CloudStack - not CloudPlatform
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
Twitter: @jzb
http://dissociatedpress.net/

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:59 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/17/12 4:54 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> ><Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> >> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
> >> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were
> >>essentially  code-complete for this reason.
> >> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
> >>There
> >> is just too much uncertainty.
> >> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
> >>would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
> >
> >
> >So I don't really know if I know enough to cast a vote either way. If
> >this is something simple that can be fixed in a couple of days
> >(including the licensing issues) - I'm for letting it remain a blocker.
> >If it's 8 man-weeks of effort, well that's a different story.
> >
> >--David
> 
> According to Frank, "it takes a while". My interpretation was >1 week. :)

At least

> 
> --
> Chiradeep

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.

On 10/17/12 4:54 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
><Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
>> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
>> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were
>>essentially
>> code-complete for this reason.
>> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
>>There
>> is just too much uncertainty.
>> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
>> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0
>
>
>So I don't really know if I know enough to cast a vote either way. If
>this is something simple that can be fixed in a couple of days
>(including the licensing issues) - I'm for letting it remain a
>blocker. If it's 8 man-weeks of effort, well that's a different story.
>
>--David

According to Frank, "it takes a while". My interpretation was >1 week. :)

--
Chiradeep

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially
> code-complete for this reason.
> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There
> is just too much uncertainty.
> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0


So I don't really know if I know enough to cast a vote either way. If
this is something simple that can be fixed in a couple of days
(including the licensing issues) - I'm for letting it remain a
blocker. If it's 8 man-weeks of effort, well that's a different story.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Edison Su <Ed...@citrix.com>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:51 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> +1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
> We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
> We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were
> essentially
> code-complete for this reason.
> This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix.
> There
> is just too much uncertainty.
> Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
> would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0

Yah, support the latest OVM is almost like rewrite the current OVM code, it will take months to get it done.

> 
> 
> 
> On 10/18/12 12:06 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca> wrote:
> 
> >
> >I don't think anyone wants to drop the feature. The thought was, will
> >fixing
> >support for this HV push release back by a large amount? And if so,
> then
> >could the feature fix come after 4.0 in the form of 4.0.1.
> >
> >And I completely agree that if this is the case, it should be
> documented,
> >or
> >the upgrade be blocked for current OVM users, as to avoid confusion.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM
> >To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> >Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> >
> >On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
> <Fr...@citrix.com>
> >wrote:
> >>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue.
> It
> >takes a while to fix.
> >>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> >>
> >> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
> >> from working in 4.0?
> >> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> >> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for
> a
> >> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
> >> for this or not.
> >>
> >> --David
> >
> >I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one
> major
> >feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the
> other
> >IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very
> >clear
> >that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't
> upgrade
> >thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go
> as
> >far
> >as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the
> >upgrade fails.
> >

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com>.
+1 on fixing in a 4.0.x.
We need to make some tough decisions if we want "time based releases".
We already dropped AutoScale and Brocade even though they were essentially
code-complete for this reason.
This is an issue that is of uncertain size (weeks at least) to fix. There
is just too much uncertainty.
Also it seems that folks want the latest version of OVM anyway, which
would not be helped by fixing this in 4.0



On 10/18/12 12:06 AM, "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca> wrote:

>
>I don't think anyone wants to drop the feature. The thought was, will
>fixing
>support for this HV push release back by a large amount? And if so, then
>could the feature fix come after 4.0 in the form of 4.0.1.
>
>And I completely agree that if this is the case, it should be documented,
>or
>the upgrade be blocked for current OVM users, as to avoid confusion.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM
>To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>
>On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
>takes a while to fix.
>>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
>> 
>> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
>> from working in 4.0?
>> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
>> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
>> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
>> for this or not.
>> 
>> --David
>
>I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one major
>feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other
>IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very
>clear
>that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade
>thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go as
>far
>as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the
>upgrade fails.
>

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
I don't think anyone wants to drop the feature. The thought was, will fixing
support for this HV push release back by a large amount? And if so, then
could the feature fix come after 4.0 in the form of 4.0.1.

And I completely agree that if this is the case, it should be documented, or
the upgrade be blocked for current OVM users, as to avoid confusion.

-----Original Message-----
From: Caleb Call [mailto:calebcall@me.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:02 PM
To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>
wrote:
>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
takes a while to fix.
>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> 
> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM 
> from working in 4.0?
> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a 
> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 
> for this or not.
> 
> --David

I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one major
feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other
IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very clear
that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade
thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go as far
as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the
upgrade fails.

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Caleb Call <ca...@me.com>.
On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> 
> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
> from working in 4.0?
> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
> for this or not.
> 
> --David

I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one major feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very clear that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go as far as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the upgrade fails.

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
In the process of logging it in to ASF as well. 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-368


-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:54 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

In the process of logging it in to ASF as well. 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-368


-----Original Message-----
From: Sudha Ponnaganti 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:54 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

In the process of logging it in to ASF as well. 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
In the process of logging it in to ASF as well. 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:52 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache
CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with
CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Outback Dingo <ou...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> We definitely need to add these same issues in ASF Jira if it's still there.
>
> Will
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:48 AM
>> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>>
>> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
>> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
>> <Fr...@citrix.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
>> > > takes a
>> > while to fix.
>> > > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
>> >
>> > Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
>> > from working in 4.0?
>> > Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
>> > This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
>> > few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for
>> this or not.
>> >
>> > --David

OVM - Oracle VM ?? drop it, kick it to the curb, deliver 4.0, fix later

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Outback Dingo <ou...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> We definitely need to add these same issues in ASF Jira if it's still there.
>
> Will
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:48 AM
>> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>>
>> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
>> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
>> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
>> <Fr...@citrix.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
>> > > takes a
>> > while to fix.
>> > > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
>> >
>> > Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
>> > from working in 4.0?
>> > Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
>> > This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
>> > few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for
>> this or not.
>> >
>> > --David

OVM - Oracle VM ?? drop it, kick it to the curb, deliver 4.0, fix later

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
We definitely need to add these same issues in ASF Jira if it's still there.

Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:48 AM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
> <Fr...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
> > > takes a
> > while to fix.
> > > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> >
> > Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
> > from working in 4.0?
> > Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> > This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
> > few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for
> this or not.
> >
> > --David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Will Chan <wi...@citrix.com>.
We definitely need to add these same issues in ASF Jira if it's still there.

Will

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:48 AM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang
> <Fr...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It
> > > takes a
> > while to fix.
> > > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> >
> > Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
> > from working in 4.0?
> > Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> > This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
> > few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for
> this or not.
> >
> > --David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
> Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia
>

bugs.cs.o is deprecated and no longer has anything to do with Apache
CloudStack (and is imminently going away), so if it is a bug with
CloudStack, then it belongs in the ASF's jira instance.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a
> while to fix.
> > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> 
> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM from
> working in 4.0?
> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a few days
> so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for this or not.
> 
> --David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Caleb Call <ca...@me.com>.
On Oct 17, 2012, at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
>> I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> 
> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
> from working in 4.0?
> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
> few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
> for this or not.
> 
> --David

I agree, this is a major feature to drop support for.  This is one major feature (of many) that drove us to favor Cloudstack over some of the other IaaS options out there.  If it doesn't block 4.0, I would make it very clear that the support for OVM is not in 4.0 so that a customer doesn't upgrade thinking (assuming) you wouldn't drop such a major feature.  Maybe go as far as adding something in the upgrade that if OVM is currently used, the upgrade fails.

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
There are bugs in bugs.cloudstack.org for these issues.
Not sure if needs to duplicate on ASF bugzliia 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:41 AM
> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a
> while to fix.
> > I vote to dropping it from 4.0
> 
> Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM from
> working in 4.0?
> Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
> This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a few days
> so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0 for this or not.
> 
> --David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
> I vote to dropping it from 4.0

Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
from working in 4.0?
Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
for this or not.

--David

Re: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
> I vote to dropping it from 4.0

Aside from the licensing issues - what are the issues that keep OVM
from working in 4.0?
Can we get bugs filed for those issues?
This is a major feature being dropped - this needs to likely sit for a
few days so people have a chance to weigh in on whether to block 4.0
for this or not.

--David

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
I agree and vote to drop.

But am just wondering if it really needs to wait until official 4.1 to get added back in? or could it be hotfixed at somepoint?

KELCEY DAMAGE 
Infrastructure Systems Architect 
www.backbonetechnology.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
kelcey@bbits.ca 

address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114    
fax: +1 604 605 0964 
skype: kelcey.damage 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
I vote to dropping it from 4.0

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the 
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to 
> work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by "Kelcey Damage (BBITS)" <ke...@bbits.ca>.
I agree and vote to drop.

But am just wondering if it really needs to wait until official 4.1 to get added back in? or could it be hotfixed at somepoint?

KELCEY DAMAGE 
Infrastructure Systems Architect 
www.backbonetechnology.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
kelcey@bbits.ca 

address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114    
fax: +1 604 605 0964 
skype: kelcey.damage 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Zhang [mailto:Frank.Zhang@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
I vote to dropping it from 4.0

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the 
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to 
> work), will we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
I vote to dropping it from 4.0

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work), will
> we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?

RE: Drop OVM in 4.0?

Posted by Frank Zhang <Fr...@citrix.com>.
OVM is broken in 4.0 even these patches don't have license issue. It takes a while to fix.
I vote to dropping it from 4.0

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Drop OVM in 4.0?
> 
> Hi All,
>    Due to the bug http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-16488 and the
> license issue(some files related to OVM are removed on 4.0
> branch(https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> cloudstack.git;a=commit;h=7f8a1aabbf9b6764780e0c2ad870009c5555c2d4)),
> OVM is not supported on 4.0 branch, currently.
>    It will take a while(maybe one or two weeks to get OVM back to work), will
> we wait for OVM before releasing 4.0, or move OVM into 4.1 release?