Sounds good. Altogether, the makeover should be a new user experience and leverage the latest hypervisor/storage tech and new/redesigned frameworks.
-Suresh On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:13 AM Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > I'm in the favour of keeping the 4.x going because no API compatibility is > broken, and as long as we are following semver there is no need. Calling a > 4.x a 5.x just for the sake of bumping versions may cause some perception > issue. > > Removal of unsupported/poc/incomplete features, plugins including APIs > should not constitute breaking of compatibility. Several network and > hypervisor plugins are still in poc/incomplete/unmaintained state. > > Unless the API layer, and perhaps DB layer is re-architected there is no > point in calling the next version 5.x as long as semver is followed. > > In my opinion, the next major version 5.0 should have a restful versioned > API layer, a new DB+upgrade framework that may support multiple db servers, > a new UI, sandboxed plugin framework (right now a plugin can do anything it > wants to say the cloud db), a new agent-clustering framework (the current > low level nio and rpc code goes away), a distributed message bus and > locking service (that we thought to introduce in 4.2,4.3 but incomplete), > and refactor the networking/VR layer with a new VR. Not to mention cleanup > some technical debt. The keywords being major architectural and > api/integrational changes. Some of this maybe on-going, but we'll get to > 5.x with patience over time. > > Regards, > Rohit Yadav > > ________________________________ > From: Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:15:29 AM > To: users; dev > Subject: Why CloudStack 5 > > I decided whether to write it several weeks thinking about the stones and > rotten potatoes, but still decided to do that. Hope it will not raise the > stress level. > > Colleagues and ACS leaders, I would like to initiate the discussion. Why go > to CS5 rather than stay with 4.XX. Some thoughts are: > > 1. According to the versioning guide, the first number stands for radical > changes like if the community decided to go from current ORM to Hibernate. > I don't see the capabilities for such changes and there are no intentions > for the implementation. > > 2. I can realize that we 'stuck' with '4.XX' and the marketing can be > disappointing from that point of view. Then, OK, let's just skip the first > number "4." and release, ACS 13.X, 14.X, 15.X and so on. Every version will > receive new impressing version number and everyone could be happy about > that. > > Going to version "5" currently looks like as an intention to refresh but > with very poor motivation. At least to me. > > The discussion is strongly welcome. > > > > -- > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > Bitworks LLC > Cell RU: +7-923-414-1515 > Cell USA: +1-201-257-1512 > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > Amadeus House, Floral Street, London WC2E 9DPUK > @shapeblue > > > >
