On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I overall agree with the proposed plan. I like the idea of having a
>> "supported" flag (or another name as per Kurt's email) that makes it
>> easy mark a driver as
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I overall agree with the proposed plan. I like the idea of having a
> "supported" flag (or another name as per Kurt's email) that makes it
> easy mark a driver as "unsupported" indicating it might be removed
> soon.
>
> About po
Hi,
I overall agree with the proposed plan. I like the idea of having a
"supported" flag (or another name as per Kurt's email) that makes it
easy mark a driver as "unsupported" indicating it might be removed
soon.
About point #3 I'm indifferent, it's a common approach in the project
to log a warn
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Loo, Ruby wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I admit, I didn't read the entire thread [0], but did read the summary
> [1]. I like this, except that I'm not sure about #3. What's the rationale
> of adding a new config option 'enable_unsupported_drivers' that defaults to
> False.
In my opinion, we have to be careful about the "supported" label. Saying
that third-party tested drivers are community supported implies a
commitment that may have not been intended.
Personally, I see no problem with leaving everything just as planned.
Drivers that are in tree are either tested up
I like this approach more than the current "you're in or you're out".
+1
--deva
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 7:02 AM Vladyslav Drok wrote:
> +1 from me then :)
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Vladyslav Drok
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri,
Hi,
I admit, I didn't read the entire thread [0], but did read the summary [1]. I
like this, except that I'm not sure about #3. What's the rationale of adding a
new config option 'enable_unsupported_drivers' that defaults to False. Versus
not having it, and "just" logging a warning if they are
+1 from me then :)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Vladyslav Drok
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Jim Rollenhagen >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ironickers,
> >>
> >> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Vladyslav Drok wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ironickers,
>>
>> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and standard
>> deprecation policy. If you haven't read through it yet, please do before
>> co
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
> Hi Ironickers,
>
> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and standard
> deprecation policy. If you haven't read through it yet, please do before
> continuing here. :)
>
> The outcome of that thread is summarized well
;> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Driver removal policies - should we
>>make it
>> softer?
>>
>> Hi Ironickers,
>>
>> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and
>>standard
>> deprecation policy. If you haven't read thro
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Rollenhagen [mailto:j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 7:15 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [ironic] Driver removal policies - should we make it
Excerpts from Jim Rollenhagen's message of 2016-08-19 11:02:58 -0400:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Mathieu Mitchell
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2016-08-19 10:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 3) Add a ``enable_unsupported_drivers`` config option that allows
> >>> enabling
> >>> >drive
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Mathieu Mitchell
wrote:
>
>
> On 2016-08-19 10:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>
>>> 3) Add a ``enable_unsupported_drivers`` config option that allows
>>> enabling
>>> >drivers marked supported=False. If a driver is in enabled_drivers,
>>> > has
>>
>> Do you mea
On 2016-08-19 10:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
3) Add a ``enable_unsupported_drivers`` config option that allows enabling
>drivers marked supported=False. If a driver is in enabled_drivers, has
Do you mean "in disabled_drivers" there?
enabled_drivers is the list of all drivers to be loade
On 2016-08-19 10:15 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
3) Add a ``enable_unsupported_drivers`` config option that allows enabling
drivers marked supported=False. If a driver is in enabled_drivers, has
supported=False, and enable_unsupported_drivers=False, ironic-conductor
will fail to start. Set
Excerpts from Jim Rollenhagen's message of 2016-08-19 10:15:20 -0400:
> Hi Ironickers,
>
> There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and standard
> deprecation policy. If you haven't read through it yet, please do before
> continuing here. :)
>
> The outcome of that thread is s
Hi Ironickers,
There was a big thread here[0] about Cinder, driver removal, and standard
deprecation policy. If you haven't read through it yet, please do before
continuing here. :)
The outcome of that thread is summarized well here.[1]
I know that I previously had a different opinion on this, b
18 matches
Mail list logo
