----- Original Message ----- > From: "Einav Cohen" <eco...@redhat.com> > To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skriva...@redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek" > <tjeli...@redhat.com> > Cc: "Eldan Hildesheim" <i...@eldanet.com>, "engine-devel" > <engine-devel@ovirt.org>, "Eldan Hildesheim" > <ehild...@redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <de...@redhat.com>, "Malini Rao" > <m...@redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" > <ih...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 6:56:33 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog? > > > > ... > > > > > > [1] my main concern is that this batch of patches (dialog reorg) will > > > make > > > it into ovirt > > > 3.3, but the second batch (which will contain the actual Instance Types > > > fields) won't make > > > it in time [see the ovirt 3.3 schedule in: > > > http://www.ovirt.org/OVirt_3.3_release-management - > > > ovirt 3.3 feature freeze is today (?!)]; so I wouldn't want to see ovirt > > > 3.3 being released > > > with only the first patch batch merged into it. either both batches > > > should > > > be there, or > > > both batches should not be there. > > > > There was a discussion about postponing it, but not much further it seems. > > In any case It may not be necessarily wrong to have dialog reorg in 3.3 > > without insttypes as it will at least get people to get used to it and we > > can gather feedback. It's not that it removes any functionality, on the > > contrary, e.g. the type ahead feature even solves some of the bugs we > > already have. > > indeed - it doesn't remove functionality, and I agree that it would be a good > opportunity to get feedback about some things such as the type-ahead list > box, > however the top static header in particular with only the DC/Cluster + Quota > in it may seem strange / annoying, as it would just seem like something that > takes up "real estate" in the dialog in *all* side-tab without a real good > reason. > > so there are pros and cons for introducing only the first patch batch to > ovirt-3.3, > I guess; Ideally, I would suggest to maybe re-organize the patches a bit > differently, > so that the top static header in particular wouldn't be part of this first > patch batch, > i.e., I would suggest introducing the top static header along with adding the > Instance > Types fields [which, to my understanding, is exactly what Daniel has > originally suggested > on the patch [1] in his gerrit comment(s) from May 28/29 (depends on the > timezone) - > only now I fully understand his concern (I think/hope)...].
Exactly, I prefer that the static header will be introduced along with the new dialog I.e. squashed with the final dialog patch (with instance types fields). I understand that the static header might make sense for the final dialog (though I still don't like the idea that it's relevant only for some side-tabs). Added my remarks to the patch: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635/ > > not sure how easy it is to do though - I know that *a lot* of time and effort > were > already invested in these patches as they are now, and I wouldn't want that > the reviewing/ > merging process will be held off for much longer. > > To sum up: these are the options, as I see them: > > 1) keep the current patch batch as is and: > > a. merge it in time for ovirt-3.3, or: > > b. merge it post ovirt-3.3. > > - or - > > 2) go with what Daniel has suggested in his gerrit comment: reorganize the > patches so that > the top static header would be introduced only along with the instance types > fields [that > way, it won't matter what makes it into ovirt-3.3 - the first patch batch, or > both (or none)]. > > I am in favor of (1.b) or (2). However, weighing the cons of (1.a) against > the pros of (1.a) / > cons of (1.b) or against the effort that (2) will require, and taking into > consideration the > effort that was already invested, I am not strongly against (1.a) as well. > > [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14635/ > > > ... > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
