>> The second option would be to make a copy of the old ImageCacheManager >> in the Baremetal directory, and have the Baremetal driver >> use that. This seems to me to be the better option, since it means >> that when the Baremetal driver is removed, the old ImageCacheManager >> code goes with it, without someone having to manually remove it. > > I might get shot in the head, but I think option 2 makes the most sense. > There is no need to do _new_ work in support of a dead codebase.
Agreed, making a copy isn't the end of the world, and we know we're going to delete it soonish anyway. We've asked the ironic folks to do a lot to make the baremetal transition easy and I see no reason to add a refactor dependency to the list so it can be deleted in six months :) --Dan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
