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'. > >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. > >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). >>> >>>
