Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] FFE Request: image-multiple-location support
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote: lzy@gmail.com wrote: BP: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/image-multiple-location Since a dependent patch getting merger delay (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44316/), so the main patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/33409/ been hold by FF. It's very close to get merger and waited about 3 months, could you pls take a look and let it go in H? So, this is a significant feature... which paradoxically is a good reason to accept it *and* to deny it. On one hand it would be nice to complete this (with Glance support for it being landed), but on the other it's not really a self-contained feature and I could see it have bugs (or worse, create regressions). Hello Thierry Carrez, two questions, whether we pass FFE or not. 1. why you think it's not a self-contained feature/patch, do you think the patch miss something? 2. I'd very like to know what's wrong in current patch # 33409, can you point the bugs out which you mentioned above? My answer would probably have been different if this request had been posted a week ago, but at this point, I would lean towards -1. I have two points here: 1. The dependent patch #44316 just been merged on this Monday so I could not send this FFE request out early. 2. I have committed the patch #33409 on June and followed up any comments on time, so at this point I can only say the review progress let down me TBH. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Thanks for you input ttx. zhiyan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [nova] FFE Request: read-only-volumes feature
Hello, The feature BP at https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/read-only-volumes. The Cinder server side change (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38322/) was done and merged, but since there was a delay of a few weeks on the Cinder side while team debated between some design options, and I couldn't submit Nova side patchs until the corresponding Cinder patch was merged. So the follow Nova side changes need to request FFE, I need those changes to make the feature workable fully: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44455/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44817/(depends on cinderclient change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/44672/ ) https://review.openstack.org/#/c/45171/ thanks, zhiyan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Nova API extensions NOT to be ported to v3
Hi Chris, thank you for the response. Replied by inline comments. On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Zhiyan, On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM, lzy@gmail.com lzy@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Chris, for extended_virtual_interfaces_net extension, actually it is based on 'virtual_interfaces', but I saw they are in different part in NovaV3ExtensionPortWorkList. And our product using those extension currently, so if you can port them to v3 it will be very grateful. Just to be clear, the v2 version will remain in Havana so it will be only an issue for your product if you are porting it to the v3 API. As os-virtual-interfaces doesn't support Quantum I guess you're only using it when openstack is setup with nova-network? Yes, in current version our product using nova-network, and planned to migrate to Neutron. It looks to me that it should be possible to get the same information through the quantum API (and nova-network is going away in the nearish future). Can you see any reason that might not be possible? Ok, I have not checked that yet but seems we need implement a new extension/change in Neutron API layer to cover our requirement what 'extended_virtual_interfaces' current did, maybe. It looks like extended_virtual_interfaces should be on that list of extensions not to port since it is directly dependent on os-virtual-interfaces Yes, I think so, if you no plan to port 'os-virtual-interfaces'. Regards, Chris zhiyan Also I'd like to propose that after H2 any new API extension submitted HAS to have a v3 version. That will give us enough time to ensure that the V3 API in Havana can do everything that the V2 one except where we explicitly don't want to support something. For developers who have had new API extensions merged in H2 but haven't submitted a v3 version, I'd appreciate it if you could check the following etherpad to see if your extension is on the list and put it on there ASAP if it isn't there already: https://etherpad.openstack.org/NovaV3ExtensionPortWorkList I've tried to keep track of new API extensions to make sure we do v3 ports but may have missed some. Chris ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
