On 01/06/16 13:50, Andrew Laski wrote:
This is a great point. I think most people have an implicit assumption
that the state machine will be exposed to end users via the API. I would
like to avoid that for exactly the reason you've mentioned. Of course
we'll want to expose something to users but
> -Original Message-
> From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mord...@inaugust.com]
> Sent: 01 June 2016 13:54
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] State machines in Nova
>
> On 06/01/2016 03:50 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> >
> &g
On 01/06/16 16:45, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Do u have any more details (perhaps an 'real-life' example that you can
walk us through) of this and how it played out. It'd be interesting to
hear (I believe it has happened a few times but I've never heard how it
was resolved or the details of it).
The
Miles Gould wrote:
On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
to Newton(with spec[2]).
The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
+1 to
Sounds similar to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224022/ (which is the
ironic version of expose state machine transitions over the REST API);
probably useful to read over the review commentary there and/or talk to
the ironic folks about that before doing much here (to learn some of the
On 06/01/2016 03:50 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, at 05:51 AM, Miles Gould wrote:
>> On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
>>> there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
>>> to Newton(with spec[2]).
>>> The idea is to define state machines for
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, at 06:06 AM, Timofei Durakov wrote:
> From my sight, I concerned proposed transition from option #1 to
> option #2.
> because it would be quite big change. So I wonder, has any
> component team
> implemented such transition. Open questions:
> * upgrades story potential
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016, at 05:51 AM, Miles Gould wrote:
> On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
> > there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
> > to Newton(with spec[2]).
> > The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
> > resize, etc. and
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Laski [mailto:and...@lascii.com]
> Sent: 31 May 2016 22:34
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] State machines in Nova
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016, at 04:26 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote
>From my sight, I concerned proposed transition from option #1 to option #2.
because it would be quite big change. So I wonder, has any component team
implemented such transition. Open questions:
- upgrades story potential issues
- dealing with clients(?)
- promoting state machine from
On 31/05/16 21:03, Timofei Durakov wrote:
there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
to Newton(with spec[2]).
The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
+1 to introducing an explicit
Andrew Laski wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2016, at 04:26 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Timofei Durakov wrote:
Hi team,
there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
to Newton(with spec[2]).
The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
resize, etc. and
On Tue, May 31, 2016, at 04:26 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Timofei Durakov wrote:
> > Hi team,
> >
> > there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
> > to Newton(with spec[2]).
> > The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
> > resize, etc.
Timofei Durakov wrote:
Hi team,
there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted
to Newton(with spec[2]).
The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
The spec PoC patches are overall good. At
Hi team,
there is blueprint[1] that was approved during Liberty and resubmitted to
Newton(with spec[2]).
The idea is to define state machines for operations as live-migration,
resize, etc. and to deal with them operation states.
The spec PoC patches are overall good. At the same time I think is
15 matches
Mail list logo
