[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements
jason.dobies at redhat.com
Mon Dec 9 16:01:32 UTC 2013
> I believe we are still 'fighting' here with two approaches and I believe
> we need both. We can't only provide a way 'give us resources we will do
> a magic'. Yes this is preferred way - especially for large deployments,
> but we also need a fallback so that user can say - no, this node doesn't
> belong to the class, I don't want it there - unassign. Or I need to have
> this node there - assign.
+1 to this. I think there are still a significant amount of admins out
there that are really opposed to magic and want that fine-grained
control. Even if they don't use it that frequently, in my experience
they want to know it's there in the event they need it (and will often
dream up a case that they'll need it).
I'm absolutely for pushing the magic approach as the preferred use. And
in large deployments that's where people are going to see the biggest
gain. The fine-grained approach can even be pushed off as a future
feature. But I wouldn't be surprised to see people asking for it and I'd
like to at least be able to say it's been talked about.
>>> - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to be able to view the history of nodes that have been in a deployment.
>> Why? This is super generic and could mean anything.
> I believe this has something to do with 'archived nodes'. But correct me
> if I am wrong.
> -- Jarda
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev