Maybe I missread, sorry. I interpreted that by design this was not a feature and that it was not in any roadmap as current customers don't need it, or at least I understood that from previous posts.
Happy to know this is planned to be a feature! :) Again guys, thanks a lot for the help! Sebastián Greco IT Consultant Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra www.essiprojects.com *www.essiprojects.co.uk <http://www.essiprojects.co.uk>* Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34 977 230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain 120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED *London* UK On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Sebastian Greco > <sgr...@essiprojects.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren <bkor...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > >> VMs are not > >> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y > > > > > > Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from > RH > > points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I > can't > > argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of > > companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards > this > > solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are > > missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week). > > > > I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far > from > > my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using > > RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers > (following > > the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like > this > > and dismiss this solution sooner than later. > > > > Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by > > design it is not going to happen", > > Not sure how you got this impression from current discussion. On the > contrary - people are working on this, and it was planned to be completed > in 4.0, but eventually postponed. > > Best, > > > and I wouldn't like to convert this > > thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :) > > > > Thx again guys for the help, > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Users mailing list > > Users@ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > -- > Didi >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users