Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Lucas Alvares Gomes's message of 2015-08-27 02:40:26 -0700:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Julia Kreger
>> wrote:
>> > My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
>> > sooner, however I've had to spend s
2015-08-27 18:43 GMT+02:00 Clint Byrum :
> Excerpts from Lucas Alvares Gomes's message of 2015-08-27 02:40:26 -0700:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Julia Kreger
> > wrote:
> > > My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
> > > sooner, however I've had to spend some time col
Excerpts from Lucas Alvares Gomes's message of 2015-08-27 02:40:26 -0700:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Julia Kreger
> wrote:
> > My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
> > sooner, however I've had to spend some time collecting my
> > thoughts.
> >
> > To me, it seems lik
On 08/27/2015 11:40 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
sooner, however I've had to spend some time collecting my
thoughts.
To me, it seems like we do not trust our users. Granted,
when
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
> My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
> sooner, however I've had to spend some time collecting my
> thoughts.
>
> To me, it seems like we do not trust our users. Granted,
> when I say users, I mean administrators who lik
My apologies for not expressing my thoughts on this matter
sooner, however I've had to spend some time collecting my
thoughts.
To me, it seems like we do not trust our users. Granted,
when I say users, I mean administrators who likely know more
about the disposition and capabilities of their flee
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 09:57:14PM +0100, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> Hi
>
> > On 21 Aug 2015 6:45 am, "Jim Rollenhagen" <
> >>
> >> +1, there are tons of dragons here. Now that we're to the point where
> >> our state machine is well-defined with a single entrypoint, I think
> >
> > I'm clearly c
Hi
> On 21 Aug 2015 6:45 am, "Jim Rollenhagen" <
>>
>> +1, there are tons of dragons here. Now that we're to the point where
>> our state machine is well-defined with a single entrypoint, I think
>
> I'm clearly confused. When was 1.6 deleted?
>
It wasn't and won't be AFAICT. But I think Jim is t
On 21 Aug 2015 6:45 am, "Jim Rollenhagen" <
>
> +1, there are tons of dragons here. Now that we're to the point where
> our state machine is well-defined with a single entrypoint, I think
I'm clearly confused. When was 1.6 deleted?
Rob
_
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:48:29AM +0100, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > After thinking about this some more, I'm not actually going to address Rob's
> > points above. What I want to do is go back and discuss... what do people
> > think about having an API that allows the initial provision
Hi,
> After thinking about this some more, I'm not actually going to address Rob's
> points above. What I want to do is go back and discuss... what do people
> think about having an API that allows the initial provision state to be
> specified, for a node that is created in Ironic. I'm assuming th
On 08/19/2015 02:05 AM, Ruby Loo wrote:
On 17 August 2015 at 20:20, Robert Collins
mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net>>
wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 06:13, Ruby Loo mailto:rlooya...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi, sorry for the delay. I vote no. I underst
To be honest, I'm tired of repeating the same arguments again and
again... I personally would like to get something cool done, rather than
discussing how to work around our new state machine again and again.
Now to some trolling: please include a way to users to opt-out from
NOSTATE -> AVAILAB
My opinion:
- If a new API is desirable by operators who would like to skip a few steps
in Ironic before making it active, then we should do it. I mean we should
allow them to skip the enroll state and manageable state, thereby giving
them an opportunity to land the node in "manageable" or "avai
>> On 17 August 2015 at 20:20, Robert Collins
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 August 2015 at 06:13, Ruby Loo wrote:
>>> > Hi, sorry for the delay. I vote no. I understand the rationale of
>>> trying to
>>> > do things so that we don't break our users but that's what the
>>> versioning is
>>> > meant for a
Apologies, forgot to add [ironic] to the subject.
On 18 August 2015 at 13:27, Ruby Loo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to start a different thread on this topic because I don't think
> this is about whether/how to do API microversions. Rather, given that we
> are going to support microversioning, how to
16 matches
Mail list logo
