Re: [ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 04:04:38PM +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/22/2015 09:42 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Hey, I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration using the generic registration approach. But it seem that we now have two implementations: 1. vdsm-tool register [0] 2. ovirt-register [1] To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches before we enter 3.6. Or are there reasons for keeping both of them? I believe not. Great. My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of the rest IIUIC). The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed. Thoughts? +1 for dropping vdsm-tool register verb. It started as alternative and later we merged everything in ovirt-register project which is the generic registration. I can send a patch to drop it soon. Right. So let's see what Dan replies and then we can possibly drop the duplicate effort. To answer properly, I'll need to know about the current state of ovirt-register. Is ready and available? I know that long ago someone opened complex RFEs for it, but the implementation never got into fruition. I'd like to see vdsm-reg gone, and I'd like to see it gone now. With vdsm-tool register merged, I don't think there's any remaining effort on that front (except of removing the dead vdsm-reg code out of vdsm, but this applies to both). I don't mind at all seeing ovirt-node use ovirt-register instead of vdsm-tool, and I wouldn't realy care if `vdsm-tool register`'s implementation is scrapped in favor of calling ovirt-register. Dan. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?
Hey, I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration using the generic registration approach. But it seem that we now have two implementations: 1. vdsm-tool register [0] 2. ovirt-register [1] To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches before we enter 3.6. Or are there reasons for keeping both of them? My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of the rest IIUIC). The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed. Thoughts? Greetings fabian --- [0] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/40966/ [1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-register.git ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?
Maybe better is to figure out who requested it to be part of vdsm-tool and why, while there were open bugs to have standalone tool. - Original Message - From: Fabian Deutsch fdeut...@redhat.com To: Douglas Landgraf dland...@redhat.com, Dan Kenigsberg dan...@redhat.com, Alon Bar-Lev abar...@redhat.com Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 4:42:37 PM Subject: [ovirt-devel] Registration duplication? Hey, I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration using the generic registration approach. But it seem that we now have two implementations: 1. vdsm-tool register [0] 2. ovirt-register [1] To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches before we enter 3.6. Or are there reasons for keeping both of them? My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of the rest IIUIC). The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed. Thoughts? Greetings fabian --- [0] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/40966/ [1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-register.git ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ovirt-devel] Registration duplication?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsl...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/22/2015 09:42 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Hey, I've seen that some new code landed to support Engine registration using the generic registration approach. But it seem that we now have two implementations: 1. vdsm-tool register [0] 2. ovirt-register [1] To reduce code duplication I'd suggest to drop one of these approaches before we enter 3.6. Or are there reasons for keeping both of them? I believe not. Great. My take is to keep ovirt-register which is independent and would allow us to add plain hosts to Engine (host-deploy is then taking care of the rest IIUIC). The vdsm-tool approach reuqires vdsm to be installed. Thoughts? +1 for dropping vdsm-tool register verb. It started as alternative and later we merged everything in ovirt-register project which is the generic registration. I can send a patch to drop it soon. Right. So let's see what Dan replies and then we can possibly drop the duplicate effort. Thanks fabian ___ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
