[openstack-dev] [kolla] which footer format we need
We introduced customization solution. Now, we support two format of footer. 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }} 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %} there two conflict about this now[0][1]. I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution. [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746 [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253 -- Regards, Jeffrey Zhang Blog: http://xcodest.me __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] which footer format we need
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang wrote: > We introduced customization solution. > > Now, we support two format of footer. > > 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }} > 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %} > > there two conflict about this now[0][1]. > > I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution. > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746 > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253 > > -- > Regards, > Jeffrey Zhang > Blog: http://xcodest.me > > __ > 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 > I tend towards #2, patchset [0] is corresponding to a discussion on #openstack-kolla and if we keep #2, we need to keep #1 in all dockerfiles with a deprecation warning for next cycle. Also what if user specifies both the footer blocks? We need to confirm we ignore #1 if #2 is chosen. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] which footer format we need
1. so i think we need add the deprecated status to the include_footer option and print a warn. 2. when the use specifies both two footers, they should both work rather than ignore one. it print warn already. On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Swapnil Kulkarni wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang > wrote: > > We introduced customization solution. > > > > Now, we support two format of footer. > > > > 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }} > > 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %} > > > > there two conflict about this now[0][1]. > > > > I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution. > > > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746 > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253 > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Jeffrey Zhang > > Blog: http://xcodest.me > > > > > __ > > 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 > > > > > I tend towards #2, patchset [0] is corresponding to a discussion on > #openstack-kolla and if we keep #2, we need to keep #1 in all > dockerfiles with a deprecation warning for next cycle. > > Also what if user specifies both the footer blocks? We need to confirm > we ignore #1 if #2 is chosen. > > __ > 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 > -- Regards, Jeffrey Zhang Blog: http://xcodest.me __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] which footer format we need
+1 to Jeffrey's points. We should deprecate old footer mechanism and remove it alltogether in Ocata timeframe. On 1 September 2016 at 23:51, Jeffrey Zhang wrote: > 1. so i think we need add the deprecated status to the include_footer option > and print a warn. > 2. when the use specifies both two footers, they should both work rather > than ignore one. it print warn already. > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Swapnil Kulkarni > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang >> wrote: >> > We introduced customization solution. >> > >> > Now, we support two format of footer. >> > >> > 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }} >> > 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %} >> > >> > there two conflict about this now[0][1]. >> > >> > I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution. >> > >> > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746 >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253 >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Jeffrey Zhang >> > Blog: http://xcodest.me >> > >> > >> > __ >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> I tend towards #2, patchset [0] is corresponding to a discussion on >> #openstack-kolla and if we keep #2, we need to keep #1 in all >> dockerfiles with a deprecation warning for next cycle. >> >> Also what if user specifies both the footer blocks? We need to confirm >> we ignore #1 if #2 is chosen. >> >> __ >> 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 > > > > > -- > Regards, > Jeffrey Zhang > Blog: http://xcodest.me > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] which footer format we need
I agree with Jeffrey. 2016-09-02 11:52 GMT-03:00 Michał Jastrzębski : > +1 to Jeffrey's points. We should deprecate old footer mechanism and > remove it alltogether in Ocata timeframe. > > On 1 September 2016 at 23:51, Jeffrey Zhang > wrote: > > 1. so i think we need add the deprecated status to the include_footer > option > > and print a warn. > > 2. when the use specifies both two footers, they should both work rather > > than ignore one. it print warn already. > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Swapnil Kulkarni > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Zhang > >> wrote: > >> > We introduced customization solution. > >> > > >> > Now, we support two format of footer. > >> > > >> > 1. the legacy way: {{ include_footer }} > >> > 2. the new way: {% block footer %}{% endblock %} > >> > > >> > there two conflict about this now[0][1]. > >> > > >> > I think the option 2 is better. We can get more consistent solution. > >> > > >> > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/357746 > >> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/361253 > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Regards, > >> > Jeffrey Zhang > >> > Blog: http://xcodest.me > >> > > >> > > >> > > __ > >> > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > >> I tend towards #2, patchset [0] is corresponding to a discussion on > >> #openstack-kolla and if we keep #2, we need to keep #1 in all > >> dockerfiles with a deprecation warning for next cycle. > >> > >> Also what if user specifies both the footer blocks? We need to confirm > >> we ignore #1 if #2 is chosen. > >> > >> > __ > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Jeffrey Zhang > > Blog: http://xcodest.me > > > > > __ > > 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 > > > > __ > 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 > __ 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