On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:39AM +0000, Animesh Chaturvedi wrote: >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Mathias Mullins [mailto:mathias.mull...@citrix.com] >> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:40 PM >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org; Edison Su >> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in >> > 4.2? >> > >> > I've been watching from the outside and tracking the entire discussion, >> > and with what has happened with the delays with 4.0 and 4.1 am worried >> > that this could be come the next delayer to the release of 4.2. At the >> > same time, I'm very much in agreement with David N., Chip and John B. >> > that we can't just drop a feature because it hasn't been attiquately >> > tested in that past releases. >> > >> > My observations - >> > 1. There is not a quick fix here. >> > 2. We don't know who can do it. >> > 3. We're not sure how to do it properly >> > 4. Currently we can't even agree on whether we go with the original >> > version or the newer one. >> > 5. We can't validate user base immediate need and requirement for the >> > feature. >> > 6. We're stuck in Analysis paralysis! >> > >> > Conclusion - If we don't get past these in short order we are going to >> > jeopardize 4.2 timely release. >> > >> > Suggestion: >> > Based off my work with other (corporate) software releases, if we can't >> > validate the immediate need, we don't know the immediate fix, and we >> > don't have the right people to do it should we slate this for 4.2.1 and >> > lower this to a Major for 4.2? We don't delay a major release, and at >> > the same time we dedicate ourselves to not stranding a user. We need to >> > do this, but at this point we need to do it right for that user base >> > too. >> > >> > We work to fix the previous version and we work to support new versions. >> > We get the right resources in to assist, and we make it an immediate >> > priority to address. If we can fix and test properly before the cut of >> > 4.2, WONDERFUL! If not, then it doesn't block the release, but it goes >> > out with 4.2.1 asap. >> > >> > So there's my ramblings. How far off base am I? :-) >> > >> > Ready, setŠ fire! >> > Matt >> > >> [Animesh>] Mathias thanks for a detailed and clear description. I agree if >> we can fix it fine but if not it should not block 4.2. Given that we are 3 >> weeks away from code freeze any uncertainties either needs to be addressed >> or we need to defer them. > > Based on CLOUDSTACK-3350, we have a known user. IMO, this should be a > blocker. We should either fix Swift to support users or revert the object > store branch merge changes.
Agreed, though honestly I would agree with those decisions regardless of whether there was a user or not. Breaking features in an unplanned manner is a blocker. If it can't be fixed, the change that broke it should be reverted IMO. --David
