On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Jessica Wang <jessica.w...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Chip, > >> Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now! > > I've submitted a patch to revert UI for IPv6 at Fri 3/8/2013 4:12 PM. > (The subject of my email is "[ACS41][Patch Request] - Reverting UI for IPv6 > in 4.1") > > Could you please review it? > > Jessica W I responded last night. Did I miss something? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:24 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Ahmad Emneina; Sheng Yang > Subject: Re: Reverting UI for IPv6 in 4.1 > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Chip Childers >> <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? > > Based on Ahmad's last email, we've agreed. Let's pull it from the UI now! > >> >> --Sheng >>> >>>> >>>> --Sheng >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> API only, or both UI and APIs ? I am in the process of documenting this >>>>>> feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank You >>>>>> -Radhika >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ahmad Emneina [mailto: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 >
