On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:00:26AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Radhika Puthiyetath wrote: >> >> Hi Sheng, Chip and other community members, >> >> >> >> What have we decided about the IPv6 support in 4.1 ? >> > >> > Looks like it isn't decided. Do you have an opinion? >> > >> > Do others? >> > >> > Sheng - can you try to bring this to a consensus? >> >> In fact I am trying to bring this to a consensus using this thread... >> >> I think we're OK with API only. > > Ahmad is suggesting otherwise, but I'm in agreement with you. Our next > feature release is probably the right time to bring it into the UI. > > Ahmad - any reasoning you can share around why you suggest having it in > the UI?
Sorry just found I missed the mail. If we want UI, I am thinking of if we can add some checkboxs or something highlighted to ensure that user aware that ipv6 template is needed? --Sheng > >> >> --Sheng >> > >> >> >> >> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this >> >> feature. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank You >> >> -Radhika >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto:aemne...@gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:43 AM >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1 >> >> >> >> UI + docs on how to use the feature via api and its caveats (system >> >> template X). >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Chip Childers >> >> > <chip.child...@sungard.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:50:20PM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote: >> >> > >> Hi, >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Since we didn't plan to include ipv6 template as default for 4.1 >> >> > >> release, is it necessary to revert the UI part of IPv6 to avoid >> >> > >> confusion in 4.1? We can support API only for 4.1 >> >> > >> >> >> > >> --Sheng >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > So we talked about it being experimental. Do you think we should >> >> > > make experimental = API-based configuration only? I tend to lean >> >> > > that way >> >> > myself. >> >> > >> >> > I am OK with it, just want to hear more people's idea on it. >> >> > >> >> > If it's only API-based, it would be more difficult for potential user >> >> > to try it. But left UI there without default system vm template >> >> > support would be misleading. >> >> > >> >> > --Sheng >> >> > >> >> >>
