The confirm will happen automatically, after a period of time. Maybe 0 is a valid option there, I can't remember.
John On 1 July 2013 03:18, guohliu <guoh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 06/28/2013 05:58 PM, John Garbutt wrote: >> >> I am not sure its worth the extra calls. >> >> Hopefully once we have live-migrate and cold-migrate/resize refactor >> done we can add a new single API that better combines the different >> approaches, which should remove the confusion. >> >> Thinking about it, that should sove the issue about the different states >> too. >> >> John >> >> On 28 June 2013 09:18, guohliu <guoh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/27/2013 07:05 PM, John Garbutt wrote: >>>> >>>> I haven't seen any plans to change this. >>>> >>>> The way I see it, the states make most sense for resize, which is the >>>> end-user facing operation. >>>> >>>> Personally I see migrate as a more admin focused operation. >>>> So to help simplify the code, I am OK with slightly confusing states >>>> for those users. >>>> The exception, I guess, is when users want to "re-balance" their >>>> servers between availability zones. >>>> >>>> With any luck, post refactor, it should be easier to re-visit this, >>>> and perhaps add those extra states. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On 27 June 2013 09:14, guohliu <guoh...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> I apologize if this question was already covered and I missed it, as we >>>>> know >>>>> the migrate and resize share the same code path as well as instance >>>>> status, >>>>> notification message etc in current code base, somehow it might confuse >>>>> the >>>>> user when he/she perform migrate but get VERIFY_RESIZE status, and as >>>>> far >>>>> as >>>>> I know this wasn't to be targeted in migrate refactor work, I just >>>>> wondering >>>>> to know do you think this is a issue? how about to separate migrate and >>>>> resize with different instance status and notification message as well >>>>> as >>>>> task status? any comments would be appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> Guohliu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments, it makes sense to me, the resize is all good, >>> we >>> might just need to slightly separate migrate status based on resize code >>> logic, but one exception is we might need to add confirm migrate and >>> revert >>> migrate in admin action. thoughts? >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> Guohliu >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > I prefer that we don't need confirm and revert for migrate, because it > doesn't like resize, server location is not a transparent info compare to > flavor type, when migrate finish, that's it, thoughts? I would like to > propose a patch for detail discussion. > > > Regards > Guohliu > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
