Hi Magnum Guys,
I want to raise this question through ML.
In this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/
For some old history reason, we use platform to indicate 'vm' or
'baremetal'.
This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, and
someone prefer other names,
/flavor-instance-type-dedup
Best regards,
Hongbin
From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com]
Sent: July-14-15 9:35 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others
as a type?
Hi Magnum Guys,
I want to raise this question
Stack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
I am going to propose a third option:
3. virt_type
I have concerns about option 1 and 2, because “instance_type” and flavor was
used interc
Hongbin Lu mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>>
Date: 07/14/2015 7:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others a
Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
All,
IMO virt_type does not properly describe bare metal deployments. What about
using the compute_driver parameter?
compute_driver = None
(StrOpt) Driver to
indicates.
Best regards,
Hongbin
From: Fox, Kevin M [mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov]
Sent: July-15-15 12:37 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
Maybe somehow I missed the
t baremetal node to this bay”.
Adrian
Best regards,
Hongbin
From: Fox, Kevin M [mailto:kevin@pnnl.gov]
Sent: July-15-15 12:37 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a t
Follow your heart. You are miracle!
From: Hongbin Lu
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 07/16/2015 04:44 AM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
pl
-15-15 10:36 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
Hi HongBin,
I think flavors introduces more confusion than nova_instance_type or
instance_type.
As flavors not have
"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 07/16/2015 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a type?
Kai,
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how to name the f
fy, I was thinking how t]Hongbin
> Lu ---07/16/2015 11:47:30 AM---Kai, Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I
> was thinking how to name the field you proposed in baymo
>
> From: Hongbin Lu
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" &
baymo
From: Hongbin Lu mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: 07/16/2015 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a t
iling List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 07/16/2015 03:18 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a type?
I’d be comfortable with server_type.
Adrian
On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Jay Lau wrote:
I am OK with server_type as well.
From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com]
Sent: July-16-15 3:22 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
+ 1 about server_type.
I also
+1, seems like the best choice.
Ton Ngo,
From: Hongbin Lu
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: 07/16/2015 06:33 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a typ
g Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com]
Sent: July-15-15 10:36 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
Hi HongBin,
I think flavors introduces more confusion than nova_instance_type or
bin...@huawei.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:42 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
Kai,
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how to name the field y
__
From: Adrian Otto [adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:35 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
To be clear we have tw
o do anything. A way better user experience
for all involved.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Adrian Otto [adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:35 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum]
estions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS
others as a type?
To be clear we have two pursuits on this thread:
1) What to rename bay.blatform to.
2) How we might eliminate the attribute, or replace
20 matches
Mail list logo
