Ken, Absolutely. We would like to debate a few additional columns, but yes this is the right blueprint to work from.
Brian Brian Schott bfsch...@gmail.com On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Ken Pepple wrote: > On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian Schott wrote: >> Right now, we're switching on the label, which is I think is a bad idea. I >> need to capture this in a blueprint for Diablo, but what we're proposing is >> to expand the instance_types dictionary to include additional fields and >> possibly turn it into a full editable table so that openstack deployments >> can advertise additional capabilities as new instance_types beyond the >> Amazon defaults. > > Some of this is already in flight > (http://wiki.openstack.org/ConfigureInstanceTypesDynamically) … can you take > a look at this and see if this could be extended to what you want ? > /k > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
