On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted alone, >>I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole 4.1 >>release, to avoid confusion. > > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion. People > are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since it is > considered experimental. > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this stage > of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go with the > 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks ago, I'd say, > 'yeah, probably OK'.
I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine. But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the issue raised by QA at last minute. I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in 4.1. Seems nobody cares. > >> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm template >>for one release would be tricky I think. > > Yes, but it is experimental. > >> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before, tested >>enough for default template. > > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we could > use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the apt-get unless > some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example: > - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or > - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created. I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident. I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things. According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's right that people not quite interested in ipv6. Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable with updated template. --Sheng [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387 [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus=15159 > >> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it again, >>Kelven should able to help with it. >> >>--Sheng >> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers >><chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote: >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless the ipv6 >>>> feature is required in which case: >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been testing >>>> with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta) >>>> B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is >>>>created) to >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages> >>> >>> I like option A. We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would be >>> considered "experimental" in this release anyway. So if someone wants >>> to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do a little more work >>> to get the correct system VM. >>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one. >>> >>> Other thoughts? >>> >>>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>>> >> When I first report the bug >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>>> >> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need. >>>> >> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I didn't aware of >>>> >>that. >>>> > >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because the >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and since I >>>> >started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the version to >>>> >4.2 >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going to make it in >>>> >4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1] and we've an >>>> >automated jenkins job. The only problems are: >>>> > >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1 >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the >>>> >appliance/template really works [2] >>>> > >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this. But I would >>>> >try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least before 28/2, I >>>> >really want to see your feature go in 4.1 >>>> >Since, 4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception to at >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code) to be used >>>> >in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware) and we could >>>> >still fix/test ahead of time, we still have few more weeks before the >>>> >release; otherwise we can always use the same old template. >>>> > >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc? >>>> > >>>> >Regards. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066 >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340 >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> --Sheng >>>> >> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers >>>> >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan Purushothama >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340. The system >>>>VM >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master branch >>>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-master/ >>>>>>>>las >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/ . I am referring to >>>> >>>>the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates in my question. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we have to use now >>>>are the >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited from Citrix >>>>pre-ASF). >>>> >>>> >
