On 5/4/2015 11:12 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
Hi Matt,
We originally proposed a Juno spec for this blueprint, but it got postponed to
Kilo where it has been approved without a spec together with other hypervisor
specific blueprints (the so called “trivial” case).
The BP itself is completed and marked accordingly on launchpad.
Patches referenced in the BP:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/
Abandoned: Juno specs.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107177/
Merged
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107185/
Merged
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/
Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no
longer necessary.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/137429/
Abandoned: Acording to the previous discussions on IRC, this commit is no
longer necessary.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145268/
Abandoned, due to sqlalchemy model limitations
On 04 May 2015, at 18:41, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
This spec was never approved [1] but the code was merged in Kilo [2].
The blueprint is marked complete in launchpad [3] and it's referenced as a new
feature in the hyper-v driver in the kilo release notes [4], but there is no
spec published for consumers that detail the feature [5]. Also, the spec
mentioned doc impacts which I have to assume weren't made, and there were
abandoned patches [6] tied to the blueprint, so is this half-baked or not? Are
we missing information in the kilo release notes?
How do we retroactively approve a spec so it's published to specs.openstack.org
for posterity when obviously our review process broke down?
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103945/
[2]
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:merged+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z
[3] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/hyper-v-generation-2-vms
[4] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Kilo#Hyper-V
[5] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/
[6]
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:abandoned+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bp/hyper-v-generation-2-vms,n,z
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
OK, but this doesn't answer all of the questions.
1. Are there doc impacts from the spec that need to be in the kilo
release notes? For example, the spec says:
"The Nova driver documentation should include an entry about this topic
including when to use and when not to use generation 2 VMs. A note on
the relevant Glance image property should be added as well."
I don't see any of that in the kilo release notes.
2. If we have a feature merged, we should have something in
specs.openstack.org for operators to go back to reference rather than
dig through ugly launchpad whiteboards or incomplete gerrit reviews
where what was merged might differ from what was originally proposed in
the spec in Juno.
3. Is the Hyper-V CI now testing with gen-2 images?
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
