On 13/01/15 11:58, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
I also had a chat with Steve Hardy and he suggested adding a STOPPED
state to the stack (this isn't in the spec). While not strictly
necessary to implement the spec, this would help people figure out that
the stack has reached a breakpoint instead of just waiting on a
resource
that takes a long time to finish (the heat-engine log and event-list
still show that a breakpoint was reached but I'd like to have it in
stack-list and resource-list, too).
It makes more sense to me to call it PAUSED (we're not completely
stopping the stack creation after all, just pausing it for a bit), I'll
let Steve explain why that's not the right choice :-).
+1 to PAUSED. To me, STOPPED implies an end state (which a breakpoint is
not).
I agree we need an easy way for the user to see why nothing is
happening, but adding additional states to the stack is a pretty
dangerous change that risks creating regressions all over the place. If
we can find _any_ other way to surface the information, it would be
preferable IMHO.
Would adding a new state to resources be similarly tricky, or could we
do that instead? That way you'd see what's going on in `resource-list`
which is should be good enough.
Yeah, that would be considerably less risky I think.
- ZB
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
