On 12/12/12 16:24, jvlcek wrote: > On 12/11/2012 07:05 PM, David Lutterkort wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 17:27 -0500, [email protected] wrote: >>> DTACLOUD-379 using Marios's 409 solution. >>> > > Thank you David, > >> ACK to this; stylistically, the two patches should be squashed into one, >> since after applying 1/2 triggering this error will cause a server error >> because of a missing template. > > My intention was to clearly show credit to Marios for the work he had done. > Collapsing the patches into one would have made it appear that the > entire solution was only my doing. That said I fully agree with your > point about the one patch alone leading to issues.
hey - thanks Joe - just for future reference, this really wouldn't have been a problem :) - though I appreciate the notion all the same. Plus, my 'solution' was basically what you had come up with in the first place, cheers, marios > >> >> Also, the commit message is way too terse; it should contain a sentence >> on what the problem was (RHEV-M does not allow deletion of templates >> that are in use) and what the fix was (propagating the error cleanly) > > OK will do in the future. > >> >> Related to this: looking at the XML template for image, we generate >> links for 'create_instance' and 'delete_image' unconditionally. That >> probably needs to be changed so we only create links for actions that >> can currently be performed. > > I'm working another Jira for exactly the same issue on an > Openstack template. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-346 > > I'll add this issue to that work. > > > Thanks for the feedback! > > Joe >
