cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ron Wheeler <>
Subject Re: Why CloudStack 5
Date Sat, 26 Jan 2019 03:02:40 GMT
Maybe it might be a good idea to keep 4.x for the version with no spec 
which can be extended without regard for upward compatibility and start 
a spec for 5.x. which would have some iron-clad rules about 
compatibility and interface/API stability.

That way everyone could contribute to the version that they feel most 
comfortable supporting.

Surely CS must be at a state by now where a really stable spec and API 
could be documented in a short amount of time.
If there was a spec perhaps more developers would be able to contribute.
If the docs were simplified as a result of a cleaner spec, perhaps more 
users would be able to get it implemented into production.

Even if it takes a few years to get a solid 5.0 out the door, it might 
be worthwhile if that results in a product that can be marketed as a 
mature product with clean rules for extensibility and customization.

In the meantime version 4 could be kept going if people want to keep 
patching it and cleaning it up.

Every major software product reaches a point where the initial base and 
layers of patches needs to be replaced by a version that is based on the 
latest technology and development practices or it dies under its own weight.

 From the discussion, it may be that CS has reached that point and it 
would be a lot less work to do a major rewrite than to clean out the 
accumulated junk.

I am not a CS developer and I find it hard to believe that CS is not yet 
a sufficiently mature product providing a well understood functionality 
that a really solid stable spec can not be developed.


On 1/25/19 9:36 PM, Ivan Kudryavtsev wrote:
> Well, my intention is to prevent the community from doing revolutionary
> changes intending to deliver redesigned 5.0, to keep going the current road
> improving the codebase, removing the odd stuff like 'Citrix NetScaler',
> 'Juniper XYZ' if nobody supports them, improving current functionality and
> adding new core features which are opensource without vendor lock-in, e.g.
> SDNs (I know Wido is very into it) e.g. Cumulus infra support. I believe
> current codebase is a pretty capable basement for future stable
> functionality.
> About new UI, etc stuff... Let's be honest. We develop CloudStack-UI
> project for 1.5 years AFAIK. No single PR from other developers. Next,
> Imagine, you have tree dedicated devs for CS5.X. Ok, it will take two years
> to deliver new UI. Is it possible? NO.
> Only gradual improvement can work for the current production team. We need
> to put efforts to broaden the community, delivering the stuff which
> helps new adopters to launch fast, e.g. as simple as Proxmox VE or oVirt or
> VmWare ESXi. New users don't need much top-notch stuff, they need to
> bootstrap fast.
> сб, 26 янв. 2019 г. в 04:26, Rafael Weingärtner <
>> :
>> I am 100% with @Rohit Yadav <> with respect to
>> 4.12. I do diverge regarding the next LTS version though.
>> As you all guys said, the community is small, and as such, if we have the
>> requirement for multiple major changes, before upgrading the "X" bit in a
>> release, we will never go there (that is a fact). In my opinion, because
>> the community is small, we should look for a single major change (e.g. new
>> database upgrade method/scheme), and this should trigger the next major
>> release. The ability to upgrade the "X" bit free us to remove things such
>> as the basic network support (of course, we need to create a migration
>> path), new database scheme management method, normalize log messages and
>> logging framework and so on (many more issues can be listed here).
>> I really do not understand why we have so much resistance from some people
>> on this topic.
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 2:27 PM Suresh Kumar Anaparti <
>>> wrote:
>>> 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 <>
>>> 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 <>
>>>> 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: <>
>>>> Amadeus House, Floral Street, London  WC2E 9DPUK
>>>> @shapeblue
>> --
>> Rafael Weingärtner

View raw message